,'?;fi' !;:;!;:
c I
.t - I
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
Brigham Young University
http://www.archive.org/details/selectlibraryofn04scha
Jii*^:' y''^ .-t''-
Wb^'
\ ^i
m
i*> ^
:4^
JS'
• : '.-
.-■i"^'
v^^l ^
TM
.'4''
i*:"
Vu^-^^'
4-
1 ■•
\Y : . -.
.^-ti ■\;-
..r'-
.v^
': v-i» >'-'£'■
I
ere
(tO,
^ 'S'^ A SELECT LIBRARY
I NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS
ov
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
^econ^ ^eriee.
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES
UNDER THF. EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OK
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D., and HENRY WAGE, D.D.,
Professor pf Church History in the Union Theological Se7tiinary, Principal of King' s College,
Neiju York. ' Londo7i .
IN CONNECTION WITH A NUMBER OF PA TPISTIC SCHOLARS OF EUROPE AND AMERICA.
VOLUME IV.
ST. ATHANASIUS:
SELECT WORKS AND LETTERS,
NEW YORK:
THE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE COMPANY.
OXFORD and LONDON :
PARKER & COMPANY.
1892.
Copyright, 1892, by
THE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE COMPANY.
^6c Corton (pte66
EDITORIAL PREFACE.
It is with a sense of deep obligation to Mr. Robertson, the special editor, that this
volume of the Post-Nicene series of the Fathers is presented to the subscribers and the public.
It will furnish, as is beheved, a more comprehensive and thorough introduction to the study
of Athanasius than is elsewhere accessible, and the labour and devotion bestowed upon it
are beyond all acknowledgment. Thanks must also be expressed to the publishers, by whose
liberality the ordinary limits of the volumes of this series have been extended, in order that
so important a Father as Athanasius might be represented with as much fulness as possible.
Mr. Robertson's Preface explains the care and respect with which the translation and
notes of Cardinal Newman have been treated, in reprinting them for the purpose of this
edition. But there appeared in some parts of the translation inaccuracies which could not be
reproduced consistently with a faithful representation of the original ; and so far, therefore,
and so far only, it has been corrected. Where any correction has been made in the
Cardinal's notes, it is of course distinctly sj)ecified.
I must add an expression of particular gratitude to my friend, the Rev. J, H. Lupton,
Surmaster of St. Paul's School, for his generous help in reading the translations throughout,
and for various valuable suggestions. The assistance of his scholarly learning gives me
additional confidence in presenting this volume to the public.
I must take the opportunity of expressing my great regret that there has been so con-
siderable an interruption in the issue of the series. But by the sudden failure, partly from
illness, and partly from other unforeseen causes, of two important contributions at the very
moment when they were needed, the editor and the publishers were exposed to difficulties
which were for the time insuperable. But other volumes of the series are now steadily
progressing, and it is believed there will be no further interruptions in the pubHcation.
HENRY WACE.
King's College, London,
21 Nov. 1891.
a 2
SELECT WRITINGS AND LETTERS
OF
ATHANASIUS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA.
EDITED, WITH PROLEGOMENA, INDICES, AND TABLES,
BY
ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON,
►RINCIPAL OK BISHOP HATFIELD'S HALL, DURHAM, LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE. OXFORD.
PREFACE.
In preparing the present volume the Editor has aimed at providing the English reader
with the most complete apparatus for the study of Athanasius, his life, and his theological
influence, which could be brought within the compass of a single volume of the ' Nicene and
Post-Nicene Library.' The volume contains all the most important treatises of Athanasius
(in as nearly as possible their exact chronological order), with the exception of the ad Se.ra-
pionem, the contra ApolHnarium, the ad Manellinum, and the exegetical remains. On these
and other treatises omitted from the present collection the reader is referred to the Pro-
legomena, ch. iii.
A great part of the volume, including the bulk of the historical and anti-Arian works,
and the Festal Letters, consists of a revision of translations and notes comprised in the
Oxford Library of the Fathers. The notes to all, and the translation of most, of the works in
question, excepting the Festal Letters, were prepared for that series by Mr. (since Cardinal)
Newman. It was at first intended to incorporate his work without any change ; but as the
volume began to take shape this intention was inevitably to some extent modified ; moreover,
the limits of space demanded the sacrifice of some of the less important matter. The prin-
ciples upon which the necessary changes have been made will be found stated on pp. 304,
305, 450. What is there said applies also to the de Decretis and Letter of Eusebiiis, as well as
to the notes to the historical pieces; it may be added that the translation of the 'Fourth
Discourse ' has been very carefully revised, in order to secure the utmost closeness to the some
what difficult original. In all the new translations, as well as in the revision of earlier work, the
aim has been to secure the strictest fidelity compatible with clearness. The easy assumption
that distinctions of tenses, constructions, &c., count for little or nothing in patristic Greek
has been steadily resisted. Doubtless there are passages where the distinction, for example,
of aorist and perfect, seems to fade away ; but generally speaking, Athanasius is fully sensitive
to this and other points of grammar.
The incorporation in this volume of so much of the ample patristic learning of Cardinal
Newman has inevitably involved some sacrifice of uniformity. To provide the new matter
with illustrative notes on anything like the same scale, even had it been within the present
editor's power, would have involved the crowding out of many works which the reader will
certainly prefer to have before him. Again, many opinions are expressed by Cardinal Newman
which the present editor is unable to accept. It may not be invidious to specify as an
example the many cases in which the notes enforce views of Church authority, especially
of papal authority, or again of the justifiableness of religious persecution, which appear to
be at any rate toreign to the mind of Athanasius ; or the tacit assumption that the men
of the fourth century can be divided by a broad and fast line into orthodox and heretical,
and that while everything may be believed to the discredit of the latter, the former were
at once uniform in their convictions and consistently right in practice. Such an assumption
operates with special injustice against men like Eusebius, whose position does not fall in with
so summary a classification. But it has been thought better to leave the notes in nearly
.all such cases as they stand, only very rarely inserting a reference or observation to call
attention to another aspect of the case. And in no instance has the editor forgotten the
respect due to the theological learning and personal greatness of Cardinal Newman, or to his
peculiar eminence as a religious thinker.
But this has made it inevitable that many matters are regarded in one way in the notes
of Newman, and in quite another where the present editor speaks for himself. What the great
Cardinal says of his ' Historical Sketches' (Preface to vol. ii.) holds good to a large extent of
his expositions of Athanasius. ' Though mainly historical, they are in their form and character
polemical, as being directed against certain Protestant ideas and opinions.' The aim of the
PREFACE.
VII
present editor has been throughout exclusively historical. He has regarded any polemical
purpose as foreign to the spirit in which this series was undertaken, and moreover as fated in
the long run to defeat its own aim. Whatever results may ultimately be reaped from the field
of patristic studies, whether practical, dogmatic, or controversial, they must be resolutely
postponed or rather ignored, pending the application of strict method to the criticism and
interpretation of the texts, and to the reconstruction of the history whether of the life or
of the doctrine of the Church. For the latter purpose, ' lucifera experimenta, non fructifera
quaerenda.' To follow this method, without concealing, but without obtruding, his personal
convictions, has been the endeavour of the present editor. That he has succeeded, it is not
for him to claim : but his work has been in this respect disinterested, and he ventures to hope
that readers of all opinions will at least recognise in it 'un livre de bonne foy.'
The Prolegomena are not intended to be anything approaching to a complete treatise
upon the history, writings, or theology of S. Athanasius. They are simply what their title
implies, an attempt to furnish in a connected form a preliminary account of the matters
comprised in the text of the volume, such as on the one hand to reduce the necessity for
a running historical commentary, on the other hand to prepare the reader for the study of the
text itself.
Full indices have been added for the same purpose. The general index comprises the lead-
ing theological and historical topics, and a complete register of all personal names. This latter
seemed requisite in order to escape the arbitrariness of any line which might have been drawn
between important and insignificant characters. The nobodies of history may occasionally be
important witnesses. The index of Scripture texts has been made with painful attention to
detail, and contains no unverified reference. To draw the hne in each case between formal
citation and mere reminiscence would have involved too great an expenditure of time and space ;
moreover there are many probable reminiscences of Scrij5ture language which it would have
been endless to include. But on the whole the index in question claims to be a complete
synopsis of the use made of the Bible in the text of this volume. As such it is hoped that,
with whatever occasional errors, it may be of use to the patristic and the biblical student
alike.
For the original matter comprised in this volume the editor disclaims any credit of his
own. He has aimed simply at consulting and comparing the best authorities, at sifting their
conclusions, and at following those which seem best founded. That in doing so the original
sources are ready to hand throughout is the peculiar good fortune of those who work at
Athanasius. It remains, then, for the editor to express his principal obligations to modern
writers. To mention those of earlier date, such as Montfaucon and Tillemont, is merely
to say that he has not neglected the indispensable foundations of his task. But Athanasius
has also attracted to the study of his works much of the best patristic scholarship of recent
times. Among the names mentioned in the first chapter of the Prolegomena, that of Cardinal
Newman speaks for itself. No English student will neglect his Arians, however much some
of its views may require modification. Pre-eminent for accurate knowledge of the texts and
for vivid presentment of the history is Dr. Bright, whose works have been constantly open
before the present editor, and have secured him from many an oversight. His occasional
divergence from Dr. Bright's views, especially on points of chronology, has gone along with
grateful appreciation of this scholar's genuine historical interest, large theological grasp, and
perhaps unequalled personal sympathy with Athanasius as a man and as a writer. (On the
use made in this volume of his Later Treatises of S. Athanasius, the reader is referred to what
is said, infr. p. 482.)
Last, but not least, the editor must acknowledge his obligations to Mr. Gwatkin. To
say that that writer's Studies of Arianis?n have done more than any one work with which
he is acquainted to place the intricate story of the period on a secure historical footing
is saying a great deal, but by no means too much. To say that whatever historical accuracy
has been attained in this volume" has been rendered possible by Mr. Gwatkin's previous
labours is to the present writer a matter of mere honest acknowledgment. Especially this
is the case in chronological questions. Here Mr. Gwatkin has in no single instance been
blindly followed, or without the attempt to interrogate the sources independently. But in
nearly all cases Mr. Gwatkin's results, which, it should be added, are those accepted by the
best continental students also, have held their own. It has been the editor's misfortune
to differ from Mr. Gwatkin now and then, for example with regard to the Life of Antony :
but even where he has differed as to conclusions, he has received help and instruction from
Mr. Gwatkin's ample command of material, and genuinely scientific method.
viii PREFACE.
In addition to the above writers, the manifold obHgations of the editor are recorded
in the introductions and notes: if any have been passed over, it has been due to inadvertence
or to the necessity of condensation. For the suggestions and help of personal friends the
editor's gratitude may be here expressed without the mention of names. But he may
specially mention the Rev. H. EUershaw and Miss Payne Smith, to the former of whom
he owes the translation of the Life of Antony, while the latter has kindly revised the Oxford
translation of the bulk of the Festal Letters. Lastly, the many kindnesses, and uniform
consideration, shewn to him by the English editor of this series call for his warmest recog-
nition : that they may prove not wholly thrown away is the utmost that their recipient can
venture to hope.
The University, Durham^ A. R.
1891.
CONThNTS OF VOLUME IV.
PAGE
Preface yj
Prolegomena.
Chapter I. Literature xi
II. Life of Athanasius and AccouiMT of Arianism xiii
III. Writings and Character of Athanasius Ixiii
IV. Theology of Athanasius Ixviii
V. Chronological Discussions and Tables Ixxx
Appendix. The Prefects and Duces of Egypt xc
Select Works of Athanasius*.
1. Ad versus Gentes Libri duo
a. Against the Heathen (Contra Gentes) I
b. On the Incarnation (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei) 31
2. Deposition of Arius, and circular letter (Oxford translation by Rev. M. Atkinson, with notes
of Newman, revised by Rev. A. Robertson) 68
3. Council of Nicsea. The ' Epistola Eusebii ' from Athanasius de Decretis, translation, notes,
and excursus of Newman (revised by Rev. A. Robertson) 73
4. Statement of Faith (Ecthesis, or Expositio Fidei) 83
5. On Luke X. 22 (In Illud Omnia, &c.) 86
6. Encyclical Letter (Epistola Encyclica), Oxford translation by Rev. M. Atkinson, with notes
of Newman, revised by Rev. A. Robertson 91
7. Apology (Apologia contra Arianos), Atkinson's translation, notes of Newman, revised by
Rev. A. Robertson 07
8. Defence of the Nicene Council (de Decretis), translation and notes of Newman. (Appendix
above, No. 3). Slightly revised 145
9. Defence of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria (de Sententia Dionysii) 173
10. Life of Antony (vita Antoni), translation by Rev. H. Ellershaw, M.A., with notes, &c., by
Rev. A. Robertson 188
1 1 . Circular to Bishops of Egypt and Libya (ad Episcopos .^gypti), Atkinson's translation, notes of
Newman, revised by Rev. A. Robertson 222
12. Apology to the Emperor (Apologia ad Constantium), Atkinson's translation, notes of New-
man, revised by Rev. A. Robertson 236
13. Defence of his flight (Apologia de Fuga), Atkinson's translation, notes of Newman, revised by
Rev. A. Robertson 254
14. Allan History (Historia Arianorum ad Monachos), Atkinson's translation, with notes of
Newman, revised by Rev. A. Robertson 266
15. Against the Arians (Orationes contra Arianos IV,), translation and notes of Newman, revised
by Rev. A. Robertson 303
16. On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia (de Synodis), Newman's translation, with notes,
revised by Rev. A. Robertson 448
17. Synodal letter (Tomus ad Antiochenos) 481
Appendix. — Account by Athanasius of his flight under Julian (Narratio ad Ammonium),
translation by Rev. H. Ellershaw 487
i8. Synodal letter (ad Afros) 488
X CONTENTS.
B. Letters of Athanasius *. page
I — 45. Festal or Easter Letters, the Oxford translation, revised by Miss Payne-Smith, edited,
with Introduction (including the Historia Acephala and ' Index') and revised notes by
Rev. A. Robertson.
Introduction. Historia Acephala and Festal Index 495
Letters : 5°^
46 — 64. Personal letters, translations with notes by Rev. A. Robertson.
46. Ad Ecclesias Mareoticas 554
47. Ad Ecclesiam Alexandrise 555
48. Ad Amun 556
49 . Ad Dracontium 557
50. 51. Ad Luciferum Epistolte duas 5^1
52, 53. Ad naonachos Epp. du» (No. 52, Oxford Translation, revised) 5^3
54. Ad Serapionem de morte Arii (Oxford Translation, revised) 5^4
55. Ad Rufinianum 5^6
56. Ad Imperatorem Jovianum (with Appendix) 5^7
57. 58. Ad Orsisium 5^9
59. Ad Epictetum 57°
60. Ad Adelphium 575
61. Ad Maximum philo^oplium 57^
62. Ad Joannem et Antiochum 579
63. Ad Palladium 580
64. Ad Diodorum 580
Additional Notes and Excursus :
Excursus A (Newman), on Hypostasis and Ousia in the Nicene formula 77
Note on the Bishops present at Sardica 147
Excursus B (Newman), on Trp]v yepfridrivai ovk ^v 343
Excursus C, on the Fourth Discourse against the Arians 431
Note on Newman's Excursus to the de Synodis 48a
Note on Letters not included in this collection 581
Indices (i) of Texts of Scripture 585
(2) of Subject Matter 592
•N.B. The Introductions are in every case by Rev. A. Robertson ; the translations and the notes are by him
except where otherwise slated. All additions made by him to Dr. Newman's notes are included
in square brackets.
PROLEGOMENA.
CHAPTER I
Literature.
§ I. Editions, &c. (a) Before 1601 only Latin translations. The first, at Vicenza, 1482, completed
by Barnabas Celsanus after the death of the translator Omnibonus of Lonigo ; dedicated to Paul II. Contained
a few works only, viz. the ' two books c. Gentes,'' the letter to Serapion de Morte Arii, the De Incarn. adv.
Arian. and adv. Apollin., the ' Dispute with Arius at the Council of Nic£ea.' (2) Paris, 1520, pub. by Jean
Petit: two books r. Gent, fragment of the ad Marcellin. and some 'spuria.' (3) Second edition at Strass-
BURG, 1522. (4) Basel, 1527, by Erasmus : Serap. iii. and iv., de Deer., Apol. Fug., Apol. c. Ar. (part of),
'■ad Monach.,^ and some 'spuria' (he rejected Serap. i. as unworthy of Athan. !). (5) Lyons, 1532, same
contents as numbers (2) and (4), but with renderings by Politian, Reuchlin, Erasmus, &c. (6) Cologne, 1632,
similar contents. (7) 1556, Basel (' apud Frobenium'), by P. Nannius, in 4 volumes; great advance on
previous editions. 3 vols, contain the version by Nannius of the 'genuina,' the fourth 'spuria,' rendered by
others. The Nannian version was ably tested, and found wanting, under the direction of the congregation of
the Index (Migne XXV. pp. xviii. ^17^.). (8) 1564 (or 1584?) Basel (substantially the same). (9) 1570, Paris,
Vita Afitonii and 'five dialogues de Trin.,' version of Beza. (10) 1572, Paris, five volumes, combining
Nos. 7 and 9. (11) 1574, Paris, Letter ad Amun, Letter 39 (fragment). Letter ad Riifinianum. (12) 1581,
Paris, incorporating the latter with No. 10. (13) Rome, 1623, the spurious de variis qiicsstionibus.
(b) The first Greek Edition (14) 1601 at Heidelberg by Commelinus, with the Nannian Latin version
(2 vols. fo. with a supplement of fragments, letters, &c., communicated by P. Felckmann). This edition was
founded upon Felckmann's collation of numerous MSS., of which the chief were (a) that in the Public Library
at Basel (ssec. xiv., not ix. — x. as Felck. states; formerly belonged to the Dominican Friary there). (/3) The
'Codex Christophorsoni,' now at Trin. Coll., Camb., ssec. xvi. ineunt. (7) A 'Codex Goblerianus ' dated
1319, formerly ttjj ^uoctjj tov Kvpl^ov, and principally used by Nannius. Neither this nor the remaining MSS.
of Felckmann are as yet, I believe, identified. (Particulars, Migne, P.G. xxv. p. xliii.) ^15) 1608, Paris, pub.
by C. Chappelet, edited by Fronton le Due, S.J., Latin only. (17) 1612, Paris, No. 15, with Fit. Ant. in
Greek and Latin, from an edition (16) of 161 1, Augsburg, by Hoschel, 4°. (r8) 1627, Paris, Greek text of
1601 with version of Nannius from edition No. 17, both injudiciously revised by Jean le Pescheur, from the
critical notes of Felckmann himself, which however are omitted in this edition. (19) 'Cologne,' or rather
Leipzig, 1686, poor reprint of No. 18 with the Syntagma Doctrina which Arnold had published in the previous
year (see below, ch. ii. § 9). (Montf. wrongly dates this 1681.)
(c) All the above were entirely superseded by the great (20) 1698 Paris Benedictine Edition by Bernard
de Montfaucon, aided, for part of vol. i, by Jacques Loppin, 3 volumes fol. (i.e. vol. i, parts i and 2,
•genuina,' vol. 2 'dubia et spuria'), with a NEW Latin Version and ample prolegomena, &c. Montfaucon
took over, apparently without revision, the critical data of Felckmann (including his mistake as to the age of
the Basel MS.), but collated very many fresh MSS. (principally Parisian, full particulars in Migne xxvi.
pp. 1449, sqq.), and for the first time put the text on a fairly satisfactory footing. The Works of Athanasius
were freshly arranged with an attempt at chronological order, and a ' Monitum ' or short introduction prefixed
to each. Critical, and a few explanatory, notes throughout ; also an ' onomasticon ' or glossary. This splendid
edition was far more complete than its predecessors, and beautifully printed. After its completion, Montfaucon
discovered fresh material, most of which he published in vol. 2 of his ' Collectio Nova Patrum,' Paris,
1706, with some further supplementary matter to his Prolegomena, partly in reply to Tillemont upon various
critical questions ; small additions in his Biblioth. Coisliniana, 1715. (The letters to Lucifer, included in Mont-
faucon's edition, had already seen the light in vol. iv. of the Bibliotheca Maxima Patrum (Lyons, 1677, Greek
fathers in Latin only), and the two notes to Orsisius were taken from the life of Pachomius in the Acta SS. for
May.)
(21) 1746, Rome, the de Titulis Psalmorum, edited from Barberini and Vatican MSS. by Cardinal Niccolo
Antonelli. (22) 1769, Venice, vol. v. of the 'Bibliotheca Patrum' of the Oratorian Andrea Gallandi.
Contains the works omitted in No. 20, chiefly from Montf. Coll. Nov., but with a few minor additions, and
with the fragments and letters found by Maffei at Verona (see below, pp. 495, 554). (23) 1777, Padua,
by Giustiniani, in four volumes, containing firstly Montfaucon's 'genuina' in two volumes, the 'dubia'
and 'spuria' in the third, and the supplementary matter from (21) and (22) in the fourth. The printing
of this standard edition is not equal to that of Ncf. 20. (24) ' 1884' (1857), Paris, vols. xxv. — xxviii. of
Migne's Patrologia Grseca, a reprint of No. 23, but in a new order (see vol. xxviii. p. 1650), and with the
addition of the Festal Letters from Mai (see below, p. 501). The merits and demerits of this series are
well known. Of the latter, the most serious are the misprints, with which every page literally teems.
(d) With Migne's edition the publication of a complete Athanasius (so far as his works are known to be
extant) is attained, although there is still everything to be done towards the revision of the text on a critical
basis. Among modern editions of large portions of Athanasius from the Benedictine text may be mentioned
(25) Thilo, Athan. 0pp. dogm. Selecta, Leipz. 1853. (26) Bright, Orations against the Arians (1873
2nd ed. 1883). and historical Writings of Athanasius, 1881 (Oxf. Univ. Press), with Introductions; both
xii PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER I.
most convenient ; his Lessons from the lives of three great Fathers {'Longmz.ns, 1890) gives an interesting popL
study of Athan. Editions of separate books will be noticed in the short Introductions prefixed in this volume.
§ 2. Translations. The principal Latin versions have been referred to in § i. Of those in foreign
languages it is not easy to procure adequate information. Fialon, in the work mentioned below, translates
Apol. Const, and ApoL Fug. ; in German the ' Bibliothek der Kirchenvater,' vols. 13 — 18, Ausgew. Schriften
des h. Ath., contains translations of several works by FiSCH, Kempten from 1872. The principal English
Translations are those in the ' Library of the Fathers.' Of these, tliose edited or translated by Newman
are incorporated in this volume. Some letters included in this volume, as well as the work against Apol-
linarianism, are also comprised in the volume {Lib. Path. 46, 1881) by BRIGHT, with excellent notes, &c.,
and with a preface by Dr. Pusey (see below, p. 482). Translations of single books will be noticed in
the respective Introductions.
§ 3. Biographies, (a.) Ancient. The writings ot Athanasius himself, while seldom furnishing precise
chronological data, furnish almost all the primary information as to the facts of his eventful life. The earliest
' Life ' is the panegyric of Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. 21), delivered at CP. 379 or 380, rich in praises, but
less so in historical material. More important in the latter respect is the Historia Acephala (probably earlier
than 390) printed in this volume, pp. 496, sqq. (The Edition by SlEVERS in Zischr. fiir Hist. TheoL for
1868 is referred to in this volume as ' Sievers ' simply.) It is a priceless source of chronological information,
especially where it coincides with and confirms the data of the Festal Lndex (pp. 503, sqq.), a document
probably earlier than 400. A secondary place is occupied by the Church historians, especially Socrates,
.~50zomen, and Theodoret, who draw largely from "Athanasius himself, and from Rufinus, also in part
from the Hist. Aceph. (especially Sozomen), and from Arian sources, which are mainly used by Philostorgius.
More scattered notices in later ecclesiastical writers of the fourth century, especially Epiphanius ; also
Synesius, Jerome, Basil, &c., in the documents of the Councils, &c., and in the Life of Pachomius and
other early documents relating to Egyptian Monasticism (see below, Introd. to Vit. Anton, and Appendix,
pp 188, 487).
(b) Medieval, Under this head we may notice the Lives prmted by Montfaucon among his Prolegomena.
The first, ' Incerto Auctore,' is dependent on the fifth-century historians and of no value. A second, presei-ved
by Photius (c. 840) is in the judgment of that scholar, which Montfaucon endorses, ' unparalleled rubbish.' That
by the Metaphrast (f 967) is a patchwork from earlier writers made with little skill, and not of use to the
historian. An Arabic Life current in the Coptic Church, communicated to Montf. by Renandot, is given
by Montf., as he says, that his readers may appreciate the ' stupendous ignorance and triviality ' of that nation.
Montf. mentions Latin ' Lives ' compiled from Rufinus and from the Hist. Tripartita, ' of no value whatever. '
Of the Life of Athanasius ' by Pachomius,' mentioned by Archd. Farrar [infra), I can obtain no particulars.
(c) Modern. The first was that by Tortelius prefixed to the edition of 1520 (§ i (2)), but compiled in
the previous century and dedicated to Pope Eugenius IV. ('good for its time,' M.). Montf. mentions
a valueless life by Lipomanus, and a worse one of unknown origin prefixed to other early editions. In
1671 Hermant made the first attempt at a critical biography (Paris) ; in 1664 an English work, "History
of the Life and Actions of St. Athanasius by N.B. P.C. Catholick," with the imprimatur of Abp. Sheldon,
had been published at London, in 1677 the biography in Cave, Lives of the Fathers, and in 1686 — 1704
du Pin, A/ouvelle BibliotMque. About the same date appeared the first volume of the Acta SS. for May,
which contains a careful life by Papebroch (1685 ; ded. to Innocent XL). But all previous (to say nothing
of subsequent) labours were cast into the shade by the appearance of the ' Vita ' of Montfaucon
(Prolegg. to Tom. i) in 1698, in which the chronology was reduced to order, and every particle of inform-
ation lucidly digested; and by the ' Memoires' of ' M. Lenain de TiLLEMONT ' (vol. viii. in 1702), which
go over the ground with quite equal thoroughness, and on many points traverse the conclusions of Montfaucon,
whose work came into Tillemont's hands only when the latter was on his death-bed (1698). The ground was
once more traversed with some fulness and with special attention to the literary and doctrinal work of Athan.
by Remy Ceillier (Aut. Sacres, vol. v. 1735). After this nothing remained to be done until the revival
of interest in patristic studies during the present century. In 1827 appeared the monograph of Mohler
'Ath. der Grbsse ' (Mainz), a dogmatic (R.C. ) rather than a historical study: in 1S62 Stanley ('Eastern
Church,' Lect. vii.). Bohringer's life (in vol. 6 of Kirchengesch. in Biographien, i860 — 1879) is praised as
'thoroughly good and nearly exhaustive.' FlALON St. Athanase, Paris, 1877, is a most interesting and
suggestive, though rather sketchy, treatment from an unusual point of view. P. Barbier Vie de St. A. (Tours,
18S8) I have not seen. The best English life is that of Dr. Bright, first in the Introd. to the 'Orations'
{supra, § I, d. 26), but rewritten for the Dictionary of Christ. Biography. The same writer's Introd. to
the Hist. Writings {supra ib.) is equally good and should also be consulted. A lucid and able sketch by
Dr. Reynolds has been published by the Religious Tract Society, 1889, and Archd. Farrar, Lives of
the Fathers, I, pp. 445 —571, is eloquent and sympathetic.
§4. History of the Period, and of the Arian Controversy, (a) Conflict of the Church with
Heathenism. On the later persecutions Aube, Z^j- C/^r/^z>«j a'awj /'£w/. romain, Paris, 188 1, id. 'L'^glise et
I'etat,' ib. 1886, Uhlhorn Der Kampf des Christentums, &c. (4th. ed.), 1886, Bernhardt, Gesch. Fotns
von Valerian bis Dioklet., 1876, GoRRES, Licinianische Christenverfolgung, 1875. On Diocletian, Mason,
Persec. of Diocl., 1876, Monographs by VoGEL, 1857, Prkuss, 1869. On the general subject of the decline of
paganism, Lasaulx, Untergang^ des Hellenismus, 1854, Merivale's Boyle Lectures, 1864-5, Chastel, De-
struction du Paganisme, 1850, Schultze, Gesch. des Unter^angs des G.-R. Heidentums, 1887 (not praised),
DOLLINGER, Gentile and Jezu (E. Tr.), 1862. On the revival of paganism under Julian, Rendall, '7«//a«,
1879, Bp. J. Wordsworth in D.C.B., vol. iii., lives of Julian by Neander, 1813, Rode, 1877, xMiicKE,
1879, Naville, 1877, Strauss, der Romantiker, u.s.w., 1847, Julian's works, ed. Hertlein, 1875, and
Neumann, 1880. Monographs by Auer, 1855, Mangold, 1862, Semisch, 1862, Lubker, 1864; Capes,
University Life in Ancient Athens, 1877, Sievers, Leben des Libanius, 1868.
(b) The Christian Empire. Keim, Uebertritt Konsiantins, 1862, Brieger, /Const, der G., 1880,
Gibbon's chapters on the subject should be carefully read. Chawner's Legist, of Constantine, De Broglie,
L'eglise et Hemp, romain, iii., Ranke, Weltgesch. iv. pp. I — 100 (important), 1884, Schiller, Gesch. der
riim. Kaiserzeit (ii.), 1887. See also the full bibliography in voL l of this series, p. 445 — 465.
(c) General History of the Church. It is unnecp'-'ary to enumerate the well-known general histories, all
LITERATURE.
Xlll
ot which devote special pains to Athanasius and the Arian controversy. This is especially the case with SCHAFF,
Niceiie Christ, ii 6i6 — 678, 884—893, with full bibliography. See also supra § 3. Bright's Notes on the
Canons (Oxf. 1882), and Hefele, vol. 2 (E. Tra.), are most useful: also Kaye, Council of Niccea (Works,
vol. V. ed. 1888). Card. Hergenrother's Kirchengeschichte (allowing for the natural bias of the writer)
is fair and able, with good bibliograpliical references in the notes (ed. 1884). By far the best modern historical
monograph on the Arian period is that of Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, 1882, constantly referred to in
this volume, and indispensable. His Arian Controversy, 1889, is an abridgement, but with supplementary dis-
cussions of importance on one or two points ; very useful bibliography prefixed to both. (Cf. also below,
Chap. V. § l) Rolling's Gcschichte der Arianischen Hiiresie (ist vol., 1874, 2nd, 1883) is pretentious and
uncritical.
§ 5. History of Doctrine. For ancient sources see articles Heresiology and Person of Christ in
D. C.B., vols iii., iv. The modern classics are the works of Petavius, de Trinitate (in vols. ii. and iii. of his
De dogmat. Theol) of Thomassinus, Dogmata Theologica, and of Bull, Defensio ftdei Nica:na (maintaining
against Petav. the fixity of pre-Nicene doctrine). Under this head we include Newman's Arians of the Fourth
Century, an English classic, unrivalled as a dogmatic and religious study of Arianism, although unsatisfactory
on its purely historical side. (Obsolete chronology retained in all editions.) The general histories of Doctrine are
of course full on the subject of Arianism; for an enumeration of them, see Harnack, § 2 of his Prolegomena.
In English we have Shedd (N. Y., 1863, Edinb., 1884), Hagenbach (Clark's Foreign Theol. Lib.), and the
great work of DoRNER (id.). The most important recent works are those of Harnack, Dogmengeschichie {\%%(),
third vol., 1890), a most able work and (allowing for the prepossessions of the Ritschl school) impartial and
philosophical ; and LoOFS, Leitfadtn zur Dogmettgeschichte (2 ed., 1890), on similar lines, but studiously
temperate and fair. Both works are much used in this volume (quoted commonly as ' Harnack,' ' Loofs,' simply.
Harnack, vol. i., is quoted from the Ji7'st edition, but the later editions give comparative tables of the pages).
For Councils and Creeds, in addition to the works of Hefele and Bright mentioned § 4 c. , see Heurtley,
Harmonia Synibolica ; Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole ; Hort, Two Dissertations (1876), indispensable for
history of the Nicene Creed; Swainson, Nicene and Apostles' Creed, 1875; Caspari, Ungedruckte u.s.w.
Quellen zuni Tanfsymbol u.s~w. (3 vols, in 2, Christiania, 1866 — 1875), ^"^^ '^^^^ ^'^^ Neue Quellen, ib. 1879 ;
one of the most important of modern pa'ristic works.
§ 6. Patristic Monographs, (a) Among the very numerous works of this kind, the most useful for our
purpose are Zahn, Marcellus von Ancyra, 1867, very important for doctrinal history ; Reinkens, Hilarius
von Poitiers, 1864 ; FlALON, St. Basile, 1868; Ullmann, Gregorius von Naziatiz (2 ed., 1867, part of earlier
ed. trans, by Cox, 1855); KriJGER, Lucijer von Calaris (excellent, especially for the Council of 362). Under
this head may be mentioned the numerous excellent articles in Diet. Chr. Biog. referred to in their respective
connexions.
(b) On the doctrine of Athanasius. In addition to the works of Ceillier and Mohler referred to above,
Atzberger, Die Lo^oslehre des h. Ath. (Munich, 1880) ; Voigt, Die Lehre des Athan. (Bremen, 1861) ;
Pell, Lehre des h. Ath. von der Siinde und Erlosung (Passau, 1888, a careful and meritorious analysis, candidly
in the interest of Roman Catholicism. Difficulties not always faced).
The above list of authorities, &c., does not pretend to completeness, nor to enumerate the sources for
general secular or Church history But in what relates specially to Athanasius it is hoped that an approximation
to either requirement has been attained. Works bearing on more special points are referred to in their proper
places. In particular, a special brief bibliography is prefixed to the Vita Antonii.
CHAPTER II.
Life of St. Athanasius and account of Arianism.
A. §§ I — 3. To the Council of Nic^a, 298—325.
§ I. Early years, 298 — 319.
§ 2. The Arian controversy before Nicsea (319 — 325).
§3. (i.) The Council of Nic^a (325).
§ 3. (2.) Situation at the close of the Council (325 — 328).
a. Novelty OF Arianism. Its Antecedents in the history of doctrine.
b. The ' 'OiUuoutrio*'.'
c. Materials for reaction, (i) Persecuted Arians. (2) Eusebius and the Court
siastical conservatism. Marcellus and Photinus.
B.
§§ 4-8.
§4-
§5
§6.
(3) Eccle-
I
The conflict with Arianism (328 — 361).
Early years of his Episcopate (328 — 335), and first troubles.
The Council of Tyre and First Exile (335 — 337).
Renewed troubles and Second Exile (337—346).
(1) At Alexandria (337—339)-
(2) At Rome. Council of Antioch, &c. (339 — 342).
(3) Constans ; Council of Sardica, and its sequel (342 — 346).
The golden Decade (346 — 356).
(i) Athanasius as bishop.
(2) Sequel of the death of Constans.
The Third Exile (356- 361).
(i) Expulsion of Athanasius.
(2) State of the Arian controversy : — (a) ' Anomceans ' ; (b) ' Homceans ' ; (c) ' Semi-
Arians.'
(3) Athanasius in his retirement.
C §§ 9, 10. Athanasius in Victory (362 — 373)-
§ 9. Under Julian and his successors ; Fourth and Fifth Exiles (362 — 366),
§ 10. Last years. Basil, Marcellus, Apollinarius (366 — 373).
§7.
§8.
xiv PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § i.
Id primum scitu opus est in proposito nobis minime fuisse ut omnia ad Arium Arianos aliosque haereticos
illius aetatis itidemqiie Alexandrum Alexandiinum Hosium Marcellum Serapionem aliosque Athanasii familiares
aut synodos spectantia lecensere sed solummodo ea quae uel ad Athanasii Vitam pertinent uel ad earn proxime
accedunt. — Montfaucon.
Athanasius was born between 296 and 298 ^ His parents, according to later writers, were
of high rank and wealthy. At any rate, their son received a liberal education. In his most
youthful work we find him repeatedly quoting Plato, and ready with a definition from the
Organon of Aristotle. He is also familiar with the theories of various philosophical schools,
and in particular with the developments of Neo-Platonism. In later works, he quotes Homer
more than once {Hist. Ar. 68, Orat. iv. 29), he addresses to Constantius a defence bearing
unmistakeable traces of a study of Demosthenes de Corona (Fialon, pp. 286 sq. 293). His
education was that of a Greek : Egyptian antiquities and rehgion, the monuments and their
history, have no special interest for him : he nowhere betrays any trace of Egyptian national
feeling. But from early years another element had taken a first place in his training and
in his interest. It was in the Holy Scriptures that his martyr teachers had instructed him, and
in the Scriptures his mind and writings are saturated. Ignorant of Hebrew, and only rarely
appealing to other Greek versions (to Aquila once in the Ecthesis, to other versions once or
twice upon the Psalms), his knowledge of the Old Testament is limited to the Septuagint.
Eut of it, as well as of the New Testament, he has an astonishing command, 'AXelai/Speiiy t<S
7fVet, avr]p Xoyioj, hvvaTo<i S}v iv rais ypa((>a'is. The Combination of Scriptural study and of Greek "
learning was what one expects in a pupil of the famous Alexandrian School; and it was in this
School, the School of Clement and Origen, of Dionysius and Theognostus, that young Atha-
nasius learned, possibly at first from the lips of Peter the bishop and martyr of 311^. The
influence of Origen still coloured the traditions of the theological school of Alexandria. It was
from Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria 312 — 328, himself an Origenist 'of the right wing,'
that Athanasius received his moulding at the critical period of his later teens.
Of his first introduction to Alexander a famous story is told by Rufinus [Hist. Ecd. I. xiv.). The Bishop,
on the anniversary of the martyrdom of liis predecessor, Peter, was expecting some clergy to dinner after service
in a house by the sea. Out of the window, he saw some boys at play on the shore : as he watched, he saw that
they were imitating the sacred rites of the Church. Thinking at last that they were going too far, he sent some
of his clergy to bring them in. At first his enquiries of tlie little fellows produced an alarmed denial. But
at length he elicited that one of them had acted the Bishop and had baptized some of the others in the character
of catechumens. On ascertaining that all details had been duly observed, he consulted his clergy, and decided
that the baptisms should be treated as valid, and that the boy-bishop and his clergy had given such plain proof
of their vocation that their parents must be instructed to hand them over to be educated for the sacred profession.
Young Athanasius accordingly, after a further course of elementary studies, was handed over to the bishop to be
brought up, like Samuel, in the Temple of God. This, adds Sozomen (ii. 17), was the origin of his subsequent
attachment to Alexander as deacon and secretary. The story is credited by some writers of weight (most recently
by Archdeacon Farrar), but seems highly improbable. It depends on the single authority of a writer not famed
for historical judgment, and on the very first anniversary of Peter's martyrdom, when Alexander had hardly
ascended the episcopal throne, Athanasius was at least fourteen years old. The probability that the anniversary
would have been other than the first, and the possibility that Athanasius was even older, coupled with the -
certainty that his theological study began before Peter's martyrdom, compel us to mark the story with at least
a strong note of interrogation. But it may be allowed to confirm us in the belief that Alexander early singled
out the promise of ability and devotion which marked Athanasius for his right-hand man long before the crisis
which first proved his unique value.
His years of study and work in the bishop's household bore rich fruit in the two youthful
works already alluded to. These works more than any later writings of Athanasius bear traces
of the Alexandrian theology and of the influence of Origenism : but in them already we trace .
the independent grasp of Christian principles which mark Athanasius as the representative of
something more than a school, however noble and many-sided. It was not as a theologian, -
but as a believing soul in need of a Saviour, that Athanasius approached the mystery of Christ.
Throughout the mazes of the Arian controversy his tenacious hold upon this fundamental
principle steered his course and balanced his theology. And it is this that above all else
characterises the golden treatise on the Incarnation of the Word. There is, however, one
' He was unable to speak from memory of the events of the j that this was true : but such a charge would not be made without
persecution of 303 {Hist. Ar. 64), but [de Incarn. 56. 2) had ! some ground at least of plausibility. We must therefore suppose
been instructed in religion by persons who had suffered as martyrs, j that on June 8, 328, he was notmuch beyond his thirtieth year.
This must have been before 311, the date of the last persecution ' His parents, moreover, were living after the year 358 (see below,
in Egypt under Maximin. Before 319 he had written his first
books 'against the Gentiles,' the latter of which, on the In-
carnation, implies a full maturity of power in the writer, while
the former is full of philosophical and mythological knowledge
such as argues advanced education. But from several sources
we learn that his election to the episcopate in 32B was impugned,
at any rate in after years, on the ground of his not having attained
the canonical age of thirty. There is no ground for supposing
p. 562, note 6) ; allowing them over fourscore years at that date,
we find in 298 a reasonable date for the birth of their son. We
must remember that in southern climates mind and body mature
somewhat more rapidly than with ourselves, and the ' contra
Gentes ' and ' de Incarnatione ' will scarcely appear precocious.
2 The statements of Greg. Naz. that he frequented classes
of grammar and rhetoric is probable enough ; that of Sulpitius
Severus that he was ' juris consultus' lacks corroboration.
OUTBREAK OF THE ARIAN TROUBLES.
XV
element in the influence of Origen and and his successors which already comes out, and which
never lost its hold upon Athanasius, — the principle of asceticism. Although the ascetic
tendency was present in Christianity from the first, and had already burst forth into extrava-
gance in such men as Tertullian, it was reserved for the school of Origen, influenced by
Platonist ideas of the world and life, to give to it the rank of an acknowledged principle
of Christian morals — to give the stimulus to monasticism (see below, p. 193). Among the
acclamations which accompanied the election of Athanasius to the episcopate that of th twv
dcTKrjTwv was conspicuous {Apol. Ar. 6). In de Jncani. 51. i, 48. 2, we seem to recognise the
future biographer of Antonys.
§ 2. The Arian Controversy before Niccea, 319 — 325.
At the time when Athanasius first appeared as an author, the condition of Christian
Egypt was not peaceful. Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis, was accused of having sacrificed during
the persecution in 301 (pp. 131, 234); condemned by a synod under bishop Peter, he had
carried on schismatical intrigues under Peter, Achillas, and Alexander, and by this time had
a large following, especially in Upper Egypt. Many cities had Meletian bishops : many of the
hermits, and even communities of monks (p. 135), were on his side.
The Meletian account of the matter (preserved by Epiphan. Ilcer. 58) was diff"erent from
this. Meletius had been in prison along with Peter, and had differed from him on the question
of the lapsed, taking the sterner view, in which most of the imprisoned clergy supported him.
It would not be without a parallel (D.C.B. art. Donatists, Novatian) in the history of the
burning question of the lapsi to suppose that Meletius recoiled from a compromised position
to the advocacy of impossible strictness. At any rate {de Incarn. 24. 4) the Egyptian Church
was rent by a formidable schism. No doctrinal question, however, was involved. The alliance
of Meletians and Arians belongs to a later date.
It is doubtful whether the outbreak of the Arian controversy at Alexandria was directly
connected with the previous Christological controversies in the same Church. The great
Dionysius some half-century before had been involved in controversy with members of his
Church both in Alexandria and in the suffragan dioceses of Libya {infr. p. 173}. Of the
sequel of that controversy we have no direct knowledge : but we find several bishops and
numerous clergy and laity in Alexandria and Libya -^ ready to side with Arius against his
bishop.
The origin of the controversy is obscure. It certainly must be placed as early as 318 or
319, to leave sufficient time before the final deposition of Arius in the council of 321 {infr.
p. 234). We are told that Arius, a native of Libya, had settled in Alexandria soon after the
origin of the Meletian schism, and had from motives of ambition sided at first with Meletius,
then with Peter, who ordained him deacon, but afterwards was compelled to depose him
(Epiph. HcBr. 69, Sozom. i. 15). He became reconciled to Achillas, who raised him to the
presbyterate. Disappointed of the bishopric at the election of Alexander, he nurtured a private
grudge (Thdt. H. E. i. 2), which eventually culminated in opposition to his teaching. These
tales deserve little credit : they are unsupported by Athanasius, and bear every trace of inven-
tion ex post facto. That Arius was a vain person we see from his Thalia {infr. p. 308) : but he
certainly possessed claims to personal respect, and we find him not only in charge of the urban
parish of Baucalis, but entrusted with the duties of a professor of scriptural exegesis. There
is in fact no necessity to seek for personal motives to explain the dispute. The Arian problem
was one which the Church was unable to avoid. Not until every alternative had been tried
and rejected was the final theological expression of her faith possible. Two great streams of
theological influence had run their course in the third century : the subordinationist theology of
Origen at Alexandria, the Monarchian theology of the West and of Asia which had found a
logical expression in Paul of Samosata. Both streams had met in Lucian the martyr, at Antioch,
and in Arius, the pupil of Lucian, produced a result which combined elements of both (see
below, § 3 (2) a). According to some authorities Arius was the aggressor. He challenged
some theological statements of Alexander as Sabellian, urging in opposition to them that if die
Son were truly a Son He must have had a beginning, and that there had been therefore a time
3 The actual connection of Athanasius with Antony at this
period is implied in the received text of 'Vit. Anton.' Prolog.,
for it could scarcely fall at any later date. At the same time
the youthful life of Athanasius seems fully accounted for in such
a way as to leave little room for it fso Tilleniont). But our ig-
norance of details leaves it just possible that he may for a time
have visited the great hermit and ministered to him as Elisha
did of old to Elijah. (Cf. p. 105, note 2.)
4 It is of interest to note the changed conditions. In 260 bishop
Dionysius had to check the Monarchian tendency in Libya, and
was accused by members of his own flock of separating the Son
from the Being (ovcria) of the Father. In 319 a Lilsyan, Alius,
cries out upon the Sabellianism of his bishop, and formulates
the very doctrine which Dionysius had been accused of main-
taining.
XVI
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER 11. § 2.
when He did not exist. According to others (Constantine in Eus. Vit. ii. 69) Alexander had
demanded of his presbyters an explanation of some passage of Scripture which had led Arius
to broach his heresy. At any rate the attitude of Alexander was at first conciliatory. Himself
an Origenist, he was willing to give Arius a fair hearing (Sozom. ubi supra). But the latter was
impracticable. He began to canvass for support, and his doctrine was widely accepted. Among
his' first partisans were a number of lay people and virgins, five presbyters of Alexandria, six
deacons, including Euzoius, afterwards Arian bishop at Antioch (a.d. 361), and the Libyan
bishops Secundus of Ptolemais in Pentapolis (see p. 226) and Theonas of Marmarica (see
p. 70). A letter was addressed to Arius and his friends by Alexander, and signed by the
clergy of Alexandria, but without result. A synod was now called (z>//r. p. 70, Socr. i. 6) of
the bishops of Egypt and Libya, and Arius and his allies deposed. Even this did not check
the movement. In Egypt two presbyters and four deacons of the Mareotis, one of the former
being Pistus, a later Arian bishop of Alexandria, declared for Arius ; while abroad he was in
correspondence with influential bishops who cordially promised their support. Conspicuous
among the latter was a man of whom we shall hear much in the earlier treatises of this volume,
Eusebius, bishop of Berytus, who had recently, against the older custom of the Church (p. 103,
note 6), but in accordance with what has ever since been general in the case of important
sees, been translated to the imperial city of Nicomedia. High in the favour, perhaps related
to the family, of Constantine, possessed of theological training and practical ability, this
remarkable man was for nearly a quarter of a century the head and centre of the Arian cause.
(For his character and history, see the excellent article in D.C.B. ii. 360 — 367.) He had been
a fellow-pupil of Arius in the school of Lucian, and fully shared his opinions (his letter to
Paulinus of Tyre, Thdt. H. E. i. 6). The letter addressed to him by Arius (ib. 5) is one of
our most important Arian monuments. Arius claims the sympathy of Eusebius of Caesarea
and other leading bishops, in fact of all the East excepting Macarius of Jerusalem and two
others, ' heretical and untutored persons.' Eusebius responded with zeal to the appeal of his
' fellow-Lucianist.' While Alexander was indefatigable in writing to warn the bishops every-
where against Arius (who had now left Alexandria to seek foreign support, first in Palestine,
then at Nicomedia), and in particular addressed a long letter to Alexander, bishop of Byzan-
tium (Thdt. H. E. i. 4), Eusebius called a council at Nicomedia, which issued letters in favour of
Arius to many bishops, and urged Alexander himself to receive him to communion. Meanwhile
a fresh compUcation had appeared in Egypt. Colluthus, whose name stands first among the
signatures to the memorandum (to be mentioned presently) of the deposition of Arius, im-
patient it would seem at the moderation of Alexander, founded a schism of his own, and
although merely a presbyter, took upon himself to ordain. In Egypt and abroad confusion
reigned : parties formed in every city, bishops, to adopt the simile of Eusebius ( Vit. Const),
collided Hke the fabled Symplegades, the most sacred of subjects were bandied about in the
mouths of the populace. Christian and heathen.
In all this confusion Athanasius was ready with his convictions. His sure instinct and
powerful grasp of the centre of the question made him the mainstay of his Bishop in the painful
conflict. At a stage ' of it difficult to determine with precision, Alexander sent out to the
bishops of the Church at large a concise and carefully-worded memorandum of the decision of
the Egyptian Synod of 321, fortified by the signatures of the clergy of Alexandria and the
Mareotis (see ififra, pp. 68 — 71).
This weighty document, so different in thought and style from the letter of Alexander pre-
served by Theodoret, bears the clear stamp of the mind and character of Athanasius : it
contains the germ of which his whole series of anti-Arian writings are the expansion (see
introd. and notes, pp. 68 — 71), and is a significant comment on the hint of the Egyptian
bishops {Apol. c. Ar. 6 ad init.).
Early in 324 a new actor came upon the scene. Hosius, bishop of Cordova and con-
fessor (he is referred to, not by name, Vtl. Const, ii. 63, 73, cf. iii. 7, o ndw ftooouevoi ; by name,
Socr. i. 7), arrived with a letter from the Emperor himself, intreating both parties to make peace,
I The chronology cannot be determined with precision. The Mem-
orandum is signed by Colluthus and therefore precedes his schism.
The letter to Alex Byzant. was written after the CoUuthian schism
had begun. But the proceedings of Eusebius described above had at
least begun when the Memorandum was circulated, which must, there-
fore, have been some time after the Synod of 321. The letter of Alex-
ander to his clergy prefixed to the depositio was drawn up after it. and
includes the names of the Mareotic seceders. We may, therefore,
tentatively adopt the following series 1—321 A.D. : Egyptian Synod de-
poses Arius. Arius in correspondence with Eusebius, &c. Leaves
Alexandria for Palestine and Nicomedia. Letters sent abroad by
Alexander. Eusebius holds council and writes to Alexander 322:
Memorandum drawn up ; Alexandrian clergy assemble to sign it ; pre-
fatory address to them by Alexander with reference to the Mare9tic
defection which has just occurred ; circulation of Memorandum ; schism
of Colluthus. 323: Letter of Alexander to Alexander of Byzantium;
I Sept. 1 Constantine, master of the East, and ready to intervene intno
controversy.
NIC^A. PARTIES IN THE COUNCIL. xvii
and treating the matter as one of trivial moment. The letter may have been written upon
information furnished by Eusebius (D.C.B. s.v.) ; but the anxiety of the Emperor for the peace
of his new dominions is its keynote. On the arrival of Hosius a council (p. 140) was held,
which produced little effect as far as the main question was concerned : but the claims of
CoUuthus were absolutely disallowed, and his ordination of one Ischyras {infr. § 5) to the
presbyterate pronounced null and void. Hosius apparently carried back with him a strong
report in favour of Alexander ; at any rate the Emperor is credited {Gelas. Cyz. ii., Hard.
Cone. i. 451 — 458) with a vehement letter of rebuke to Arius, possibly at this juncture.
Such was the state of affairs which led to the imperial resolve, probably at the suggestion of
Hosius, to summon a council of bishops from the whole world to decide the doctrinal ques-
tion, as well as the relatively lesser matters in controversy.
§ 3 (i) The Couneil of Nieaa.
An ecumenical council was a new experiment. Local councils had long since grown to
be a recognised organ of the Church both for legislation and for judicial proceedings. But
no precedent as yet prescribed, no ecclesiastical law or theological principle had as yet
enthroned, the 'General Council' as the supreme expression of the Church's mind. Con-
stantine had already referred the case of the Donatists first to a select council at Rome
under bishop Miltiades, then to what Augustine {Ep. 43) has been understood to call a
'plenarium ecclesiae universse concilium' at Aries in 314. This remedy for schism was now
to be tried on a grander scale. That the heads of all the Churches of Christendom should
meet in free and brotherly deliberation, and should testify to all the world their agreement in
the Faith handed down independently but harmoniously from the earliest times in Churches
widely remote in situation, and separated by differences of language race and civilisation,
is a grand and impressive idea, an idea approximately realised at Nicsea as in no other
assembly that has ever met. The testimony of such an assembly carries the strongest evi-
dential weight ; and the almost unanimous horror of the Nicene Bishops at the novelty and
profaneness of Arianism condemns it irrevocably as alien to the immemorial belief of the
Churches. But it was one thing to perceive this, another to formulate the positive belief of
the Church in such a way as to exclude the heresy ; one thing to agree in condemning Arian
formulae, another to agree upon an adequate test of orthodoxy. This was the problem which
lay before the council, and with which only its more clearsighted members tenaciously grap-
pled : this is the explanation of the reaction which followed, and which for more than a gen-
eration, for well nigh half a century after, placed its results in jeopardy. The number of
bishops who met at Nicaea was over 250 '. They represented many nationalities (Euseb. ubi
supra.), but only a handful came from the West, the chief being Hosius, Csecilian of Car-
thage, and the presbyters sent by Silvester of Rome, whose age prevented his presence in per-
son. The council lasted from the end of May till Aug. 25 (see D.C.A., 1389). With the
many picturesque stories told of its incidents we have nothing to do (Stanley's Eastern Church,
Socr. i. 10 — 12, Soz. i. 17, 18, Rufin. H.E. i. 3 — 5) ; but it may be well to note the division of
parties, (i) Of thoroughgoing partisans of Arius, Secundus'' and Theonas alone scorned all
compromise. But Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis, Bishop of Nicaea itself, and Maris of
Chalcedon, also belonged to the inner circle of Arians by conviction (Socr. i. 8 ; Soz. i. 21
makes up the same number, but wrongly). The three last-named were pupils of Lucian
(Philost. ii. 15). Some twelve others (the chief names are Athanasius of Anazarbus and Nar-
cissus of Neronias, in Cilicia ; Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Aetius of Lydda, Paulinus of Tyre,
Theodotus of Laodicea, Gregory of Berytus, in Syria and Palestine ; Menophantus of
Ephesus ; for a fuller discussion see Gwatk. p. 31, n. 3) completed the strength of the Arian
party proper. (2) On the other hand a clearly formulated doctrinal position in contrast to
Arianism was taken up by a minority only, although this minority carried the day. Alex-
ander of Alexandria of course was the rallying point of this wing, but the choice of the for-
mula proceeded from other minds. * Jit66Toi.6i<i and ov6ia are one in the Nicene formula :
Alexander in 323 writes of rpezs -uTtodrddsii,
The test formula of Nicaea was the work of two concurrent influences, that of the anti-
Origenists of the East, especially Marcellus of Ancyra, Eustathius of Antioch, supported by
Macarius of ' ^lia,' Hellanicus of Tripolis, and Asclepas of Gaza, and that of the Western
bishops, especially Hosius of Cordova. The latter fact explains the energetic intervention of
' So Eus. Vit. Const, iii. 8— over 270, Eustath. in Thdt. i. 8— in fact
more than 300 (de Deer. 3), according to Athanasius, who again, toward
the end of his life (adA/r. 2) acquiescesin the precise figure 3181 Genesis
xiv. 14 ; the Greek numeral Tirj combines the Cross with the initial let-
ters of the Sacred Name) which a later generation adopted (it first oc-
curs in the alleged Coptic acts of the Council of Alexandria, 362, then
in the Letter of Liberius 'to the bishops of Asia in 365, in/r. § 9), on
grounds perhaps symbolical rather than historical.
2 The name of Secundus appears among the subscriptions (cf. Soz.
i. 21), but this is contradicted by the primary evidence (Letter of the
Council in Soc. i. 9, Thdt. i. 91 ; cf. Philost. i. 9, 10. But there is evi-
dence that there were two Secundi.
XVIU
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 3 (i).
Constantine at the critical moment on behalf of the test (see below, and Ep. Eus. p. 75) ; the
word was commended to the Fathers by Constantine, but Constantine was ' prompted '
by Hosius (Harnack, Dogmg. ii. 226) ; ovtos ttjv h "SiKaiq iriaTiv e^idero {infr. p. 285, § 42).
Alexander (the Origenist) had been prepared for this by Hosius beforehand (Soc. iii,
7 ; Philost. i. 7 ; cf. Zahn Marcell. p. 23, and Harnack's important note, p. 229).
Least of all was Athanasius the author of the o/^oova-tov; his whole attitude toward
the famous test (infr. p. 303) is that of loyal acceptance and assimilation rather than
of native inward affinity. ' He was moulded by the Nicene Creed, did not mould it
himself (Loofs, p. 134). The theological keynote of the council was struck by a small
minority ; Eustathius, Marcellus, perhaps Macarius, and the Westerns, above all Hosius ; the
numbers were doubtless contributed by the Egyptian bishops who had condemned Arius in
321. The signatures, which seem partly incorrect, preserve a list of about 20. The party then
which ralHed round Alexander in formal opposition to the Arians may be put down at over
thirty. 'The men who best understood Arianism were most decided on the necessity of its
formal condemnation.' (Gwatkin.) To this compact and determined group the result of the
council was due, and in their struggle they owed much — how much it is hard to determine —
to the energy and eloquence of the deacon Athanasius, who had accompanied his bishop to the
council as an indispensable companion {infr. p. 103 ; Soz. i. i'] fn.). (3) Between the con-
vinced Arians and their reasoned opponents lay the great mass of the bishops, 200 and more,
nearly all from Syria and Asia Minor, who wished for nothing more than that they miglit hand,
on to those who came after them the faith they had received at baptism, and had learned from
their predecessors. These were the ' conservatives 3,' or middle party, composed of all those
.who, for whatever reason, while untainted with Arianism, yet either failed to feel its urgent
danger to the Church, or else to hold steadily in view the necessity of an adequate test if it was
to be banished. Simple shepherds like Spyridion of Cyprus ; men of the world who were
more interested in their libelli than in the magnitude of the doctrinal issue ; theologians, a
numerous class, ' who on the basis of half-understood Origenist ideas were prepared to
recognise in Christ only the Mediator appointed (no doubt before all ages) between God and
the World ' (Zahn Marc. p. 30) ; men who in the best of faith yet failed from lack of
intellectual clearsightedness to grasp the question for themselves ; a few, possibly, who were
inclined to think that Arius was hardly used and might be right after all ; such were the main
elements which made up the mass of the council, and upon whose indefiniteness, sympathy, or
unwillingness to impose any effective test, the Arian party based their hopes at any rate of
toleration. Spokesman and leader of the middle party was the most learned Churchman of the
age, Eusebius of Csesarea. A devoted admirer of Origen, but independent of the school of
Lucian, he had, during the early stages of the controversy, thrown his weight on the side of
toleration for Arius. He had himself used compromising language, and in his letter to the
Caesarean Church {iftfra, p. 76 sq.) does so again. But equally strong language can be cited
from him on the other side, and belonging as he does properly to the pre-Nicene 'age, it is
highly invidious to make the most of his Arianising passages, and, ignoring or explaining away
those on the other side, and depreciating his splendid and lasting services to Christian learning,
to class him summarily with his namesake of Nicomedia*. (See Prolegg. to vol. i of this
series, and above all the article in D.C.B.) The fact however remains, that Eusebius gave
something more than moral support to the Arians. He was ' neither a great man nor a clear
thinker ' (Gwatkin) ; his own theology was hazy and involved ; as an Origenist, his main dread
was of Monarchianism, and his policy in the council was to stave off at least such a condemna-
tion of Arianism as should open the door to 'confounding the Persons.' Eusebius apparently
represents, therefore, the ' left wing,' or the last mentioned, of the ' conservative ' elements in
the council {si/pra, and Gwatkin, p. 38) ; but his learning, age, position, and the ascendency of
Origenist Theology in the East, marked him out as the leader of the whole.
, But the ' conservatism ' of the great mass of bishops rejected Arianism more promptly than
had been expected by its adherents or patrons.
The real work of the council did not begin at once. The way was blocked by innumerable applications to
the Christian Emperor from bishops and clergy, mainly for the redress of personal grievances. Commonplace
men often fail to see the proportion of things, and to rise to the magnitude of the events in which they play their
3 A term first brought into currency in this connection by-
Mr. Gwatkin (p. 38, note), and since adopted by many writers
including Harnack : in spite of the obvious objection to the
importations of political terms into the grave questions of this
period, the term is too useful to be surrendered, and the ' con-
servatives' of the Post-Nicene reaction were in fact too often
political in their methods and spirit. I'he truly conservative men,
here as in other instances, failed to enlist the sympathy of the
conservative rank and file.
4 The identity of name has certainly done Eusebius no good
with posterity. But no one with a spark of generosity can fail
to be moved by the appeal of Socrates (ii. 21) for common fairness
toward the dead.
PROCEEDINGS AT NIC.EA. xix
part At last Constantine appointed a day for the formal and final reception of all personal complaints,
and burnt the ' libelli ' in the presence of the assembled fathers. He then named a day by which the bishops
were to be ready for a formal decision of the matters in dispute. The way was now open for the leaders to set
to work. Quasi-formal meetings were held, Arius and his supporters met the bishops, and the situation began
to clear (Soz. i. 17). To their dismay (de Deer. 3) the Arian leaders realised that they could only count on so^ine
seventeen supporters out of the entire body of bishops. They would seem to have seriously and honestly under-
rated the novelty of their own teaching (cf the letter of Arius in Thdt. i. 5), and to have come to the council with
the expectation of victory over the party of Alexander. But they discovered their mistake : —
' Sectamur ultro, quos opimus
Fallere et effugere est triumphus.'
*Fallere et effugere' was in fact the problem which now confronted them. It seems to
have been agreed at an early stage, perhaps it was understood from the first, that some
formula of the unanimous belief of the Church must be fixed upon to make an end of
controversy. The Alexandrians and 'Conservatives' confronted the Arians with the traditional
Scriptural phrases (pp. 163, 491) which appeared to leave no doubt as to the eternal God-
head of the Son. But to their surprise they were met with perfect acquiescence. Only as
each test was propounded, it was observed that the suspected party whispered and gesticulated
to one another, evidently hinting that each could be safely accepted, since it admitted of
evasion. If their assent was asked to the formula * like to the Father in all things,' it was
given with the reservation that man as such is * the image and glory of God.' The ' power of
God ' elicited the whispered explanation that the host of Israel was spoken of as hvvayn^ Kvplov,
and that even the locust and caterpillar are called the 'power of God.' The ' eternity ' of the
Son was countered by the text, ' We that live are alway (2 Cor iv. 11)!' The fathers were
baffled, and the test of ofxooiaiov, with which the minority had been ready from the first, was
being forced (p. 172) upon the majority by the evasions of the Arians. When the day
for the decisive meeting arrived it was felt that the choice lay between the adoption of the
word, cost what it might, and the admission of Arianism to a position of toleration and influ-
ence in the Church. But then, was Arianism all that Alexander and Eustathius made it out to
be ? was Arianism so very intolerable, that this novel test must be imposed on the Church ? The
answer came (Newman Ar.'^ p. 252) from Eusebius of Nicomedia. Upon the assembling of
the bishops for their momentous debate (cby Se e^rjrelro t^s Trlarfios 6 rponos, Eustath?} he presented
them with a statement of his belief. The previous course of events may have convinced him
that half-measures would defeat their own purpose, and that a challenge to the enemy,
a forlorn hope, was the only resort left to him^a. At any rate the statement was an un-
ambiguous assertion of the Arian formulae, and it cleared the situation at once. An angry
clamour silenced the innovator, and his document was publicly torn to shreds (vtv 6'^ei irdvrav,
says an eye-witness in Thdt. i. 8). Even the majority of the Arians were cowed, and the
party were reduced to the inner circle of five {supra). It was now agreed on all hands that
a stringent formula was needed. But Eusebius of Csesarea came forward with a last effort to
stave off the inevitable. He produced a formula, not of his own devising (Rolling, pp. 208 sqq.),
but consisting of the creed of his own Church with an addition intended to guard against
Sabellianism (Hort, Two Diss. pp. 56, sq. 138). The formula was unassailable on the basis of
Scripture and of tradition. No one had a word to say against it, and the Emperor expressed
his personal anxiety that it should be adopted, with the single improvement of the o/xooOo-toi/.
The suggestion thus quietly made was momentous in its result. VVe cannot but recognise the
' prompter ' Hosius behind the Imperial recommendation : the friends of Alexander had
patiently waited their time, and now their time was come : the two Eusebii had placed the
result in their hands. But how and where was the necessary word to be inserted? and
if some change must be made in the Caesarean formula, would it not be as well to set one or
two other details right ? At any rate, the creed of Eusebius was carefully overhauled clause
by clause, and eventually took a form materially different from that in which it was first pre-
sented^^ and with affinities to the creeds of Antioch and Jerusalem as well as Caesarea.
All was now ready ; the creed, the result of minute and careful deliberations (we do not
4» Or possibly Theodoret, &c., drew a wrong inference from
the words of Eustathius (in Thdt. i. 8), and the ypiiixixa was noi
submitted />y Eusebius, but produced as evidence against him ;
in this case it must have been, as Fleury observes, his letter to
Paulinus of Tyre. .,,,■,
4*> Hort, pp. 138, 139, and 59 : the changes well classified by
Gwatkin, p. 41, cf. Harnack^, vol. 2, p. 227. The main alterations
were (i) The elimination of the word Aoyos and substitution of
vios in the principal place. This struck at the theology of Euse-
bius even more directly than at that of Arius. (2) The addition
b
not only of ojaoouaiov tco Trarpi, but also of Toureo-Tiv ek ri)<s ova-fai
ToO irarpos between fiovoyevri and 6e6v as a further qualification
of 7ei'njeeVTa (specially against Euseb. Nicom. : see his letter in
Thdt. i. 6). (3) Further explanation of yevvri$€vTa by y. ov ttolyi-
BivTo., a glance at a favourite argument of Arius, as well as at
Asterius. (4) iva.v9punrfi<Ta.vTa. added to e-\plain aapKUteivTa, and
so to exclude the Christology which characterised Arianism from
the first, (s) Addition of anathematisms directed against all the
leading Arian doctrines.
XX
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., | 3 (O-
know their history, nor even how long they occupied s), lay before the council. We are told
' the council paused.' The evidence fails us ; but it may well have been so. All the bishops
who were genuinely horrified at the naked Arianism of Eusebius of Nicomedia were yet far
from sharing the clearsighted definiteness of the few : they knew that the test proposed was
not in Scripture, that it had a suspicious history in the Church. The history of the subsequent
generation shews that the mind of Eastern Christendom was not wholly ripe for its adoption.
But the fathers were reminded of the previous discussions, of the futility of the Scriptural tests,
of the locust and the caterpillar, of the whisperings, the nods, winks, and evasions. With a great
revulsion of feeling the council closed its ranks and marched triumphantly to its conclusion.
All signed,— all but two, Secundus and Theonas. Maris signed and Theognis, Menophantus
and Patrophilus, and all the rest. Eusebius of Nicomedia signed ; signed everything, even the
condemnation of his own convictions and of his ' genuine fellpw-Lucianist ' Arius ; not the
last time that an Anan leader was found to turn against a friend in the hour of trial. Eusebius
justified his signature by a ' mental reservation ; ' but we can sympathise with the bitter scorn
of Secundus, who as he departed to his exile warned Eusebius that he would not long escape
the same fate (Philost. i. 9).
The council broke up after being entertained by the Emperor at a sumptuous banquet in
honour of his Vicennalia. The recalcitrant bishops with Anus and some others were sent into
exile (an unhappy and fateful precedent), a fate which soon after overtook Eusebius of Nicomedia
and Theognis (see. the discussion in D.C.B. ii. 364 sq.). But in 329 'we find Eusebius once
more in high favour with Constantine, discharging his episcopal functions, persuading
Constantine that he and Arius held substantially the Creed of Nicaea.'
The council also dealt with the Paschal question (see Vit. Const, iii. 18; so far as the
question bears on Athanasius see below, p. 500), and with the Meletian schism in Egypt.
The latter was the main subject of a letter (Soc. i. 9 ; Thdt. i. 9) to the Alexandrian
Church. Meletius himself was to retain the honorary title of bishop, to remain strictly at home,
and to be in lay communion for the rest of his life. The bishops and clergy of his party were
to receive a nvariKaTepa xftpoTovia (see Bright, Notes on Canons, pp. 25 sqq. ; Gore, The Church
and the Ministry, ed. i, p. 192 note), and to be allowed to discharge their office, but in the
strictest subordination to the Catholic Clergy of Alexander. But on vacancies occurring, the
Meletian incumbents were to succeed subject to (i) their fitness, (2) the wishes of the people,
(3) the approval of the Bishop of Alexandria. The terms were mild, and even the gentle
nature of Alexander seems to have feared that immediate peace might have been purchased
at the expense of future trouble (his successor openly blames the compromise, p. 131, and
more strongly p. 137) ; accordingly, before carrying out the settlement he required Meletius
to draw up an exact list of his clergy at the time of the council, so as to bar an indefinite
multiplication of claims. Meletius, who must have been even less pleased with the settlement
than his metropolitan, seems to have taken his time. At last nothing would satisfy both
parties but the personal presentation of the Meletian bishops from all Egypt, and of their clergy
S The events have been related in what seems to be their most
likely order, but there is no real certainty in the matter. It
is clear that there were at least two public sittings (Soz. i. 17,
the language of Eus. V.C. iii. 10, is reconcileable with this) in
the emperor's presence, at the first of which the libelli were burned
and the bishops requested to examine the question of faith. This
was probably on June 19. The tearing up of the creed of Eus.
Nic. seems from the account of Eustathius to have come imme-
diately before the final adoption of a creed. The creed of Eusebius
of Caesarea, which was the basis of that finally adopted, must
therefore have been propounded after the failure of his namesake.
(Montfaucon and others are clearly wrong in supposing that this
was the ' blasphemy ' which was torn to pieces !) The difficulty is,
where to put the dramatic scene of whisperings, nods, winks, and
evasions which compelled the bishops to apply a drastic test.
I think (with KoUing, &c.) that it must have preceded the pro-
posal of Eusebius, upon which the Oju-oovo-ioi/ was quietly insisted
on by Constantine ; for the latter was the only occasion (irpot^ao-ts)
of any modification in the Caesarean Creed, which in itself does
not correspond to the tests described infr. p. 163. But Mont-
faucon and others, followed by Gwatkin, place the scene in ques-
tion after the proposal of Eus. Caes. and the resolution to modify
his creed by the insertion of a stringent test, — in fact at the
'pause' of the council before its final resolution. This conflicts
with the clear statement of Eusebius that the bij.oov<riov was the
' thin end of the wedge ' which led to the entire recasting of his
creed (see in/r. p. 73. The idea of Kolling, p. 208, that the creed
of Eusebius was drawn up by him for the occasion, and that the
fiddrfixa of the council was ready beforehand as an alternative
document, is refuted by the relation of the two documents; see
Hort, pp. 138, 139). It follows, therefore, from the combined
accounts of Ath., Euseb. and Eustathius (our only eye-witnesses)
that (i) the fathers were practically resolved upon the ofxoova-iov
before the final sitting. (2) That this resolve was clinched by the
creed of Eusebius of Nicomedia. (3) That Eusebius of Caesarea
made his proposal when it was too late to think of half-measures.
(4) That the creed of Eusebius was modified at the Emperor's
direction (which presupposes the willingness of the Council),
(s) That this revision was immediately followed by the signatures
and the close of the council. The work of revision, however,
shews such signs of attention to detail that we are almost com-
pelled to assume at least one adjournment of the final sitting.
When the other business of the council was transacted, including
the settlement of the Easter question, the Meletian schism, and
the Canons, it is impossible to say. Kolling sua jure puts them at
the first public session. The question must be left open, as must
that of the presidency of the council. The conduct of the pro-
ceedings was evidently in the hands of Constantine, so that the
question of presidency reduces itself to that of identifying the
bishop on Constantine's right who delivered the opening address
to the Emperor : this was certainly not Hosius (see Vit. C. iii. ir,
and vol. i of this series, p. 19), but may have been Eusebius of
Caesarea, who probably after a few words from Eustathius (Thdt.)
or Alexander ^Theod. Mops, and Philost.) was entrusted with
so congenial a task. The name of Hosius stands first on the
extant list of signatures, and he may have signed first, although
the lists are bad witnesses. The words of Athanasius sometimes
quoted in this connection (p. 256), ' over what synod did he not
preside?' must be read in connection with the distinction made
by Theodoret in quoting the passage in question (H.E. ii. 15),
that Hosius ' was very prominent at the great synod of Nicaea,
and presided over those who assembled at Sardica. This is the
only evidence we possess to which any weight can be attached.
NOVELTY OF ARIANISM. xxi
from Alexandria itself, to Alexander (p. 137, tovtovs kuI Trapovras napidaiKev rw 'AXf$uvdp(^), who
was thus enabled to check the Brevium or schedule handed in by their chief '5. All this must
have taken a long time after Alexander's return, and the peace was soon broken by his death.
Five months after the conclusion of the negotiations, Alexander having now died, the
flame of schism broke out afresh {infr. p. 131. Montfaucon, in Migne xxv. p. Ivii., shews
conclusively that the above is the meaning of the p.r\va^ irivTi.) On his death-bed, Alexander
called for Athanasius. He was away from Alexandria, but the other deacon of that name (see
signatures p. 71), stepped forward in answer to the call. But without noticing him, the
Bishop repeated the name, adding, ' You think to escape, but it cannot be.' (Sozom. ii. 17.)
Alexander had already written his Easter Letter for the year 328 (it was apparently still extant
at the end of the century, p. 503). He died on April 17 of that year (Pharmuthi 22), and
on the eighth of June Athanasius was chosen bishop in his stead.
§ 3 (2). The situation after the Council of Niccea.
The council (a) had testified, by its horrified and spontaneous rejection of it, that
Arianism was a novelty subversive of the Christian faith as they had received it from their
fathers. They had (b) banished it from the Church by an inexorable test, which even the
leading supporters of Arius had been induced to subscribe. In the years immediately following,
we find (c) a large majority of the Eastern bishops, especially of Syria and Asia Minor, the very
regions whence the numerical strength of the council was drawn, in full reaction against the
council ; first against the leaders of the victorious party, eventually and for nearly a whole
generation against the symbol itself ; the final victory of the latter in the East being the result
of the slow growth of conviction, a growth independent of the authority of the council which it
eventually was led to recognise. To understand this paradox of history, which determines the
whole story of the life of Athanasius as bishop, it is necessary to estimate at some length the
theological and ecclesiastical situation at the close of the council : this will best be done by
examining each point in turn (a) the novelty of Arianism, (b) the Sixoova-iov as a theological
formula, (c) the materials for reaction.
(a) ' Arianism was a new doctrine in the Church ' (Hamack, p. 218) ; but it claimed to be no novelty. And
it was successful for a long time in gaining ' conservative ' patronage. Its novelty, as observed above, is
sufficiently shewn by its reception at the Council of Nicaea. But no novelty springs into existence without
antecedents. What were the antecedents of Arianism? How does it stand related to the history within the
Church of the momentous question, ' What think ye of Christ ? '
In examining such a question, two methods are possible. We may take as our point of departure the formu-
lated dogma say of Nictea, and examine in the light of it variations in theological statements in preceding periods,
to shew that they do not warrant us in regarding the dogma as an innovation. That is the dogmatic method. Or
we may take our start from the beginning, and trace the history of doctrine in the order of cause and effect, so as to
detect the divergence and convergence of streams of influence, and arrive at an answer to the question, How came
men to think and speak as they did ? That is the historical method. Both methods have their recommendations,
and either has been ably applied to the problem before us. In electing the latter I choose the more difficult
road ; but I do so with the conviction, firstly, that the former has tended (and especially in the ablest hands) to
obscure our perception of the actual facts, secondly, that the saving faith of Christ has everything to gain from
a method which appeals directly to our sense of historical truth, and satisfies, not merely overawes, the mind.
Let us then go back to ' the beginning of the Gospel.' Taking the synoptic gospels as our primary evidence,
we ask, what did Christ our Lord teach about Himself? We do not find formal definitions of doctrine concerning
His Person. Doubtless it may seem that such a definition on His part would have saved infinite dispute and
searchings of heart in the history of the Church. But recognising in Him the unique and supreme Revealer of
the Father, it is not for us to say what He should have taught ; we must accept His method of teaching as that
which Divine Wisdom chose as the best, and its sequel in history as the way in which God willed man to learn.
We find then in the materials which we possess for the history of His Life and Teaching fully enough to explain
the belief of His disciples (see below) in His Divinity. Firstly, there is no serious doubt as to His claim to be the
Messiah. (The confession of Peter in all four Gospels, Matt. xvi. 16 ; Mark viii. 29 ; Luke ix. 27 ; John vi. 69 ;
'■ Son of Man,' Dan. vii. 13 ; ix. 24, &c.) In this character He is King in the kingdom of Heaven (Matt. xxv.
31 — 36, cf. Mk. viii. 38), and revises the Law with full authority (Matt. v. 21 — 44, cf. Luke v. 24 ; Matt. xii. 8).
It may be added that whatever this claim conveyed to the Jews of His own time (see Stanton's Jetvish and Christian
Messiah) it is impossible to combine in one idea the Old Testament traits of the Coming One if we stop short of the
identification of the Messiah with the God of Israel (see Delitzsch, Psalms, vol. i. pp. 94, 95, last English ed.).
Secondly, Christ enjoys and confers the lull authority of God (Matt. x. 40; Luke x. 16 ; cf. also Matt. xxiv. 35 ;
Mk. xiii. 31 ; Luke xxi. 33), gives and promises the Holy Spirit ('the Spirit of the Father,' see Matt. x. 17, &c. ;
Luke xii. 12, and especially xxi. 15, i-yui yap daiaw, &c.), and apparently sends the prophets and holy men of old (cf ■
Matt, xxiii. 34, eyci} an-oartWoo with Luke xi. 49). Thirdly, the foundation of all this is laid in a passage preserved
by the first and third gospels, in which He claims the unqualified possession of the mind of the Father (Luke x. 22 ;
6 It is worth noting that the Nicene arrangement was successful in some few cases. See Index to this vol. s.v. Theon (of
Nilopolis), &c.
xxii PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 3 (2).
Matt. xi. 27), ' No man knoweth [who] the Son [is], save the Father, neither knoweth any man [who] the Father
[is] save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will {0ov\r]Tat) reveal Him.' Observe the reciprocity of know-
ledge between the Son and the Father. This claim is a decisive instantia /xderis between the Synoptics and the
Fourth Gospel, e.g. John xvi. 15 ; xiv. 9, &c. Fottrthly, we observe the claim made by Him throughout the
synoptic record to absolute confidence, absolute faith, obedience, self-surrender, such as no frail man is justified in
claiming from another ; the absence of any trace in the mind of the ' meek and lowly ' one of that consciousness
of sin, that need of reconciliation with God, which is to us an indispensable condition of the religious temper,
and the starting-point of Christian faith (contrast Isa. vi. 5).
We now turn to the Apostles. Here a few brief remarks must suffice. (A suggestive summary in Sanday,
' What the first Christians thought about Christ,' Ox/ordHouse Papers, First Series.) That S. Paul's summary of
the Gospel (l Cor. xv. 3 sqq) is given by him as common ground between himself and the older Apostles follows
strictly from the fact that the verb used {vap^XaBov) links the facts of Redemption (v. 3, 4) with the personal experi-
ences of the original disciples (5 sqq.). In fact it is not in dispute that the original Jewish nucleus of the Apostolic
Church preached Jesus as the Messiah, and His death as the ground of forgiveness of sins (Pfleiderer, Urchrist.
p. 20; Acts ii. 36,38; iii. 26; iv. 12, &c.; the 'Hebraic colouring' of these early chapters is very characteristic and
important). The question is, however, how much this implied as to the Divine Personality of the Saviour ; how
far the belief of the Apostles and their contemporaries was uniform and explicit on this point. Important light
is thrown on this question by the controversy which divided S. Paul from the mass of Jewish Christians with respect
to the observance of the Law. Our primary source of knowledge here is Galatians, ch. ii. We there learn that
while S. Paul regarded this question as involving the whole essence of the Gospel, and resisted every attempt to
impose circumcision on Gentile Christians, the older Apostles conceded the one point regarded as central, and, while
reserving the obligation of the Law on those born under it (which S. Paul never directly assailed, i Cor. vii. 18)
recognised the Gospel of the uncircumcision as legitimate. This concession, as the event proved, conceded every-
thing ; if the ' gospel of the uncircumcision ' was sufficient for salvation, circumcision became a national, not a.
religious principle. Now this whole question was fundamentally a question about Christ. Men who believed, or
were willing to grant, that the Law uttered from Sinai by the awful voice of the Most High Himself was no longer
the supreme revelation of God, the one divinely ordained covenant of righteousness, certainly believed that some
revelation of God different in kind (for no revelation of God to man could surpass the degree of Ex. xxxiii. 1 1) had
taken place, an unique revelation of God in man. The revelation of God in Christ, not the revelation of God to
Moses, was the one fact in the world's history ; Sinai was dwarfed in comparison of Calvary. But it must be
observed that while the older Apostles, by the very recognition of the gospel of the uncircumcision, went thus far
with S. Paul, S. Paul realised as a central principle what to others lay at the circumference. What to the one was
a result of their belief in Christ was to him the starting-point, from which logical conclusions were seen to follow,
practical applications made in every direction. At the same time S. Paul taught nothing about Christ that was
not implied in the belief of the older Apostles, or that they would not have felt impelled by their own religious
position to accept. In fact it was their fundamental union in the implicit belief of the divinity
of the Lord that made possible any agreement between S. Paul and the Jewish Apostles as
to the gospel of the uncircumcision.
The apostles of the circumcision, however, stood between S. Paul and the zealot mass of Jewish Christians
(Acts xxi. 20), many of whom were far from acquiescing in the recognition of S. Paul's Gospel. On the same
principle that we have used to determine the belief of the livKoi with regard to Christ, we must needs recognise
that where the gospel of the uncircumcision was still assailed or disparaged, the Divinity of Christ was appre-
hended faintly, or not at all.
The name of the ' Ebionite ' sect testifies to its continuity with a section of the Jerusalem Church (see Light-
foot's Galatians, S, Paul and the Three). It should be observed, however, firstly that between the clear-sighted
Apostle of the Gentiles and the straitest of the zealots, there lay every conceivable gradation of intermediate
positions (Loofs, Leitf. § II. 2, 3); secondly, that while emancipation from legalism in the Apostolic Church
implied what has been said above, a belief in the divinity of Jesus was in itself compatible with strict Jewish
observance.
The divinity of Christ then was firmly held by S. Paul (the most remarkable passage is Rom. x. 9, II, 1 3,
where Kuptoi' 'l7}0-oi/j' = auTOJ' = Kupioj' = mn"' Joel ii. 32), and his belief was held by him in common with the
Jewish Apostles, although with a clearer illumination as to its consequences. That this belief was absolutely
universal in the Church is not to be maintained, the elimination of Ebionism was only gradual (Justin, Dial, xlviii.
ad fin. ) ; but that it, and not Ebionism, represented the common belief of the Apostles and New Testament writers
is not to be doubted.
But taking this as proved, we do not find an equally clear answer to the question In what sense is Christ
God? The synoptic record makes no explicit reference to the pre-existence of Christ : but the witness of John
and descent of the Spirit (Mark i. 7 — 11) at His baptism, coupled with the Virginal Birth (Mt., Lk.), and 7inth
the traits of the synoptic portrait of Christ as collected above, if they do not compel us to assert, yet forbid us to
deny the presence of this doctrine to the minds of the Evangelists. In the Pauline (including Hebrews) and
Johannine writings the doctrine is strongly marked, and in the latter (Joh. i. I, 14, 18, txovo-yiVT\s ©ios) Jesus Christ
is expressly identified with the creative Word (Palestinian Memra, rather than Alexandrian or from Philo ; see
also Rev. xix. 13), and the Word with God. Moreover such passages as Philipp. ii. 6 sqq. , 2 Cor. xiii. 14 (the
ApostoHc benediction), ^c, &c., are significant of the impression left upon the mind of the infant Churches as
they started upon their history no longer under the personal guidance of the Apostles of the Lord.
Jesus Christ was God, was one with the Father and with the Spirit : that was enough for the faith, the love,
the conduct of the primitive Church. The Church was nothing so little as a society of theologians ; monotheists
and worshippers of Christ by the same instinct, to analyse their faith as an intellectual problem was far from
their thoughts: God Himself (and there is but one God) had suffered for them (Ign. Pom. vi. ; Tat. Gr. 13;
Melito Pr. 7), God's sufferings were before their eyes (Clem. R. I. ii. i), they desired the drink of God, even
His blood (Ign. Pom. vii., cf. Acts xx. 28) ; if enthusiastic devotion gave way for a moment to reflexion 'we must
think of Jesus Christ as of Gnd ' ('Clem. R.' II. i).
The ' ApostoHc fathers ' are not theological in their aim or method. The earliest seat of theological reflexion
in the primitive Church appears to have been Asia Minor, or rather Western Asia from Antioch to the ^Egean.
From this region proceed the Ignatian letters, which stand alone among the literature of their day in theological
depth and reflexion. Their iheoloey • is wonderfully mature in spite of its immaturity, full of reflexions, and yet
ANTECEDENTS OF ARIANISM : THE APOLOGISTS. xxiii
at the same time full of intuitive originality' (Loofs, p. 6i). The central idea is that of the renovation of man
(JSph. 20), now under the power of Satan and Death (ib. 3, 19), which are undone {KaT&Avrns) in Christ, the
risen Saviour {Smyrn. 3), who is * our true Life,' and endows us with immortality {Smyrn. 4, Magn. 6, Eph. 17).
This is by virtue of His Divinity [Eph. 19, Smyrn. 4) in union with His perfect Manhood. He is the only utter-
ance of God {\6yos ano 0-177)9 irpoe\0aiv, Magtt. 8), the ' unlying mouth by which the Father spake' {Rom. 8.)
'God come {yiv6y.ivo%) in the flesh,' 'our God' {Eph. 7, 18). His flesh partaken mystically in the Eucharist
unites our nature to His, is the 'medicine of incorruption ' {Eph. 20, Smyrn. 7, cf Trail. l). Ignatius does not
distinguish the relation of the divine to the human in Christ : he is content to insist on both : ' one Physician, of
flesh and of spirit, begotten and mibegotten ' {Eph. 7). Nor does he clearly conceive the relation of the Eternal
Son to the Father. He is unbegotten (as God) and begotten (as man) : from eternity with the Father {Magn. 6) :
through Him the One God manifested himself. The theological depth of Ignatius was perhaps in part called
forth by the danger to the churches from the Docetic heretics, representative of a Judaic {Philad. 5, Magn. 8 — to)
syncretism which had long had a hold in Asia Minor (l John and Lightfoot Coloss., p. 73, 81 sqq.). To this he
opposes what is evidently a creed {Trail. 9), with emphasis on the reality (aAi)0£S$) of all the facts of Redemption
comprised in it.
It was in fact the controversies of the second century that produced a theology in the Catholic Church, —
that in a sense produced the Catholic Church itself. The idea of the Church as distinct from and embracing the '
Churches is a New Testament idea (Eph. v. 25, cf. I Cor. xv. 9, &c.), and the name ' Catholic ' occurs at the
beginning of the second century (Lightfoot's note on Ign. Smyrn. 8) ; but the Gnostic and Montanist controversies
compelled the Churches which held fast to the TrapaSotris of the Apostles to close their ranks (episcopal federation)
and to reflect upon their creed. The Baptismal Creed (Rom. x. 9, Acts viii. 37, Text. Rec., cf. I Cor. xv. 3 — 4)
began to serve as a tessera or passport of right belief, and as a regulative standard, a ' rule of faith.' The 'limits
of the Christian Church' began to be more clearly defined (Stanton, ubi supr. p. 167).
Another influence which during the same period led to a gradual formation of theology was the necessity
of defending the Church against heathenism. If the Gnostics were ' the first Christian theologians ' ( Harnack),
the Apologists (120 — 200J are more directly important for our present enquiry. The usual title of Justin
' Philosopher and Martyr ' is significant of his position and typical of the class of writers to which he belongs.
On the one hand the Apologists are philosophers rather than theologians. Christianity is ' the only true
philosophy' (Justin) ; its doctrines are found piecemeal among the philosoiDhers {\6yn'i o-irepnaTtKos), who are so
far Christians, just as the Christians are the true philosophers (Justin and Minuc. Felix). But the Logos, who is
imparted fragmentarily to the philosophers, is revealed in His entire divine Personality in Christ (so Justin beyond
the others, Apol. ii. 8, 10). In the doctrine of God, their thought is coloured by the eclectic Platonism of the age
before Plotinus. God, the Father of all things, is Creator, Lord, Master, and as such known to man, but in Him-
self Unoriginate (d76V77TOj), ineffable, mysterious (appijroj), without a name, One and alone, incapable of Incarna-
tion (for references to Justin and to Plato, D.C.B. iii. 572). His 'goodness' is metaphysical perfection, or
beneficence to man. His 'righteousness' that of Moral Governor of the Universe (contrast the deeper sense of
St. Paul, Rom. iii. 21, &c.). But the abstractness of the conception of God gives way to personal vividness in the
doctrine of the ' visible God ' (Tert. Prax. 15 sq.), the Logos (the subject of the O. T. ' theophanies ' according to
the Apologists) who was 'with' the Father before all things (Just. Dial. 62), but was 'begotten' or projected
(7rpo/3A7)06is) by the will of the Father (ib. 128) as God from God, as a flame from fire. He is, like the Father,
ineffable (XpiaToj, Just. Apol. ii. 6), yet is the a-y-ytKos, vnripfTris of the Father. In particular He is the Father's
minister in Creation : to create He proceeded from the Father, a doctrine expressly deduced from Prov. viii. 22
{Dial. 61, 129). Before this He was the Koyos ifSidderos, after it the \6yos npo^opiKos, the Word uttered
(Ps. xlv. I LXX ; this distinction is not in Justin, but is found Theophil. ad Autol. ii. 10, 22 : it is the most
marked trace of philosophic [Stoic] influence on the Apologists). The Apologists, then, conceive of Christian
\^\Qo\ogy as philosophers. Especially the Person of the Saviour is regarded by them from the cosmological, not the
soteriological view-point. From the latter, as we have seen, St. Paul starts ; and his view gradually embraces
the distant horizon of the former (i Cor. viii. 6, Coloss. i. 15); from the soteriological side also {directly) he
reaches the divinity of Christ (Rom. v. i — 8; i Cor. i. 30; Rom. x. 13, aj above). Here, as we shall see,
Athanasius meets the Arians subslantially by St. Paul's method. But the Apologists, under the influence
of their philosophy rather than of their religion, start from the cosmological aspect of the problem. They
engraft upon an Apostolic (Johannine) title of the Saviour an Alexandrine group of associations : they go far
towards transmuting the Word of St. John to the Logos of Philo and the Eclectics. Hence their view of His
Divinity and of his relation to the Father is embaiTassed. His eternity and His generation are felt to be hardly
compatible : His distinct Personality is maintained at the expense of His true Divinity. He is God, and not the
One God; He can manifest Himself (Theophanies) in a way the One God cannot; He is an intermediary between
God and the world. The question has become philosophical rather than directly religious, and philosophy can-
not solve it. But on the other hand, Justin was no Arian. If he was Philosopher, he was also Martyr. The
Apologists are deeply saturated with Christian piety and personal enthusiastic devotion to Christ. Justin in
particular introduces us, as no other so early writer, into the life, the worship, the simple faith of the Primitive
Church, and we can trace in him influences of the deeper theology of Asia Minor (Loofs, p. 72 sq. but see more
fully the noble article on Justin in D.C.B. vol. iii.). But our concern is with their influence on the analysis
of the object of faith ; and here we see that unconsciously they have severed the Incarnate Son from the Eternal
Father : not God (6 ovruis fleoj) h\\^ z. subordinate divine being is revealed in Christ : the Logos, to adopt the words
of Ignatius, is no longer a true breach of the Divine Silence.
We must now glance at the important period of developed Catholicism marked especially by the names of
lREN.rEUS, Tertullian, and Clement, the period of a consolidated organisation, a (relatively) fixed Canon of
the New Teslament, and a catholic rule of faith (see above, and Lumby, Creeds, ch. i. ; Heurtley, Harmonia
Symbolica, i. — viii.). The problem of the period which now begins (180 — 250) was that of MONARCHIANISM ; the
Divinity of Christ must be reconciled with the Unity of God. Monarchianism is in itself the expression of the
truth common to ail monotheism, that the &px-n or Originative Principle is strictly and Personally One and one
only (in contrast to the plurality of apxixal viroarda-eis, see Newman, Arians*, p. 112 note). No Christian
deliberately maintains the contrary. The Apologists, as we have seen, tended to emphasise the distinction of
Father and Son ; but this tendency makes of necessity in the direction of ' subordination ; ' and any distinction of
' Persons ' or Hypostases in the Godhead involves to a Monotheist some subordination, in order to save the principle
XXIV
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 3 (-)•
of the Divire • Monarchia.' The Monarchian denied awj^ subordination or distinction of hypostases within the
Godhead. This tendency we have now to follow up. We do not meet with it as a problem in Iren^US. (He
'is said to have written against it,' Newman, Ar. *, p. 117, citing Dodw. in Iren.) This scholar of pupils of
Apostles stands in the lines of the Asiatic theology. He is the successor of Ignatius and Polycarp. We find him,
in sharp contrast to the Apologists, giving full expression to the revelation of God in Jesus (the ' Son is the
"" " ' ")r He contains Him '), and the union of man with God in the Saviour, as the
Measure of the Father, for
le carrymg out
of the original destiny of man, by the destruction of sin, which had for the time frustrated it (HI. xviii. p. 2H,
Deus antiquam hominis plasmationem in se recapitulans). Hence the 'deification ' of man's nature by union with
Christ (a remarkable point of contact with Athanasius, see note on de Incar. 54. 3) ; incorruption is attained to by
the knowledge of God (cf John xvii. 3) through faith (IV. xx.) ; we cannot comprehend God, but we learn to
know Him by His Love (ib. ). At the same time we trace the influence of the Apologists here and there in his
Christology (III. 6, 19, and the explanation of the ' Theophanies,' iv. 20). But in his younger contemporary
Tertullian, the reaction of Monarchianism makes itself felt. He is himself one of the Apologists, and at the
same time under Asiatic influences. The two trains of influence converge in the name Timitas, which he is the
first to use (rpi'aj first in the Asiatic Apologist Theophilus). In combating the Monarchian Praxeas (see below)
he carries subordinationism very far (cf. IJermcg. 3. 'fuit tempus cum Ei filius non fuit'), he distinguishes the
Word as ' rationalis deus ' from eternity, and ' sermonalis ' not from eternity (cf. again, Theophilus, supra). The
Generation of the Son is a irpo&oK^ (also ' eructare ' from Ps. xlv. l), but the divine 'Substance' remains
the same (river and fountain, sun and ray, Frax. 8, 9). He aims at reconciling 'subordination' with the
' Monarchia,' (ib. 4). In the Incarnate Christ he distinguishes the divine and human as accurately as Leo the Great
(ib. 27, 29). In spite of inconsistencies such as were inevitable in his strange individuality (Stoic, philosopher,
lawyer. Apologist, 'Asiatic' theologian, Catholic, Montanist) we see in Tertullian the starting-point ot Latin
Theology (but see also Harnack ii. 287 note).
We must now examine more closely the history of Monarchian tendencies, and firstly in Rome. The sub-
Apostolic Church, simply holding the Divinity of Christ and the Unity of God, used language (see above) which
may be called ' naively Monarchian.' This holds good even of Asiatic theology, as we find it in its earlier stage.
The baptismal creed (as we find it in the primitive basis of the Apostles' Creed) does not solve the problem thus
presented to Christian reflexion. Monarchianism attempted the solution in two ways. Either the One God was
simply identified with the Christ of the Gospels and the Creeds, the Incarnation being a t)Lode of the Divine manifes-
tation (Father as Creator, Son as Redeemer, Spirit as Sanctifier, or the like) : ' Modalism ' or Modalistic Monarch-
ianism (including Patripassianism, Sabellianism, and later on the theology of Marcellus) ; or (this being felt
incompatible with the constant personal distinction of Christ from the Father) a special effluence, influence, or
power of the one God was conceived of as residing in the man Jesus Christ, who was accordingly Son of God by
adoption, God by assimilation : 'dynamic' Monarchianism or Adoptionism ('Son' and 'Spirit' not so much
modes of the Divine self-realisation as of the Divine Action). This letter, the echo but not the direct survival of
Ebionism, was later on the doctrine of Photinus ; we shall find it exemplified in Paul of Samosata ; but our
present concern is with its introduction at Rome by the two Theodoti, the elder of whom (a tanner from Byzan-
tium) was excommunicated by Bishop Victor, while the younger, a student of the Peripatetic philosophy and gram-
matical interpreter of Scripture, taught there in the time of Zephyrinus A later representative of this school,
Artemon, claimed that its opinions were those of the Roman bishops down to Victor (Eus. H.E. v. 28). This
statement cannot be accepted seriously ; but it appears to be founded on a real reminiscence of an epoch in the
action and teachings of the Roman bishops at the time. It must be remembered that the two forms of Monarch-
ianism— modalism and adoptionism — are, while very subtly distinguished in their essential principle, violently
opposed in their appearance to the popular apprehension. Their doctrine of God is one, at least in its strict uni-
tarianism ; but while to the Modalist Christ is the one God, to the Adoptionist He is essentially and exclusively man'.
In the one case His Personality is divine, in the other human. Now there is clear proof of a strong Modalist tendency ^
in the Roman Church at this time ; this would manifest itself in especial zeal against the doctrine of such men as
Theodotus the younger, and give some colour to the tale of Artemon. Both Tertullian and Hippolytus complain
bitterly of the ignorance of those responsible for the ascendancy which this teaching acquired in Rome (Xupvpivav
avSpa lBl<j)T7]v kou &Treipof rwi/ €KK\7]aia(TTiKwv Uptai', Hipp. ' idiotes quisque aut perversus,' ' simplices, ne dicam
imprudentes et idiota. ' Tert. ). The utterances of Zephyrinus support this : ' I believe in one God, Jesus Christ '
(Hipp., see above on the language of the sub-Apost. Church). The Monarchian influences were strengthened by
the arrival of fresh teachers from Asia /Cloomenes and Epigonus, see note 2) and began to arouse lively
opposition. This was headed by Hippolytus, the most learned of the Roman presbytery, and eventually bishop 3
in opposition to Callistus, the successor of Zephyrinus. The theology of Hippolytus was not unlike that of
Tertullian, and was hotly charged by Callistus with 'Ditheism.' The position of Callistus himself, like that of
his predecessor, was one of compromise between the two forms of Monarchianism, but somewhat more developed.
A distinction was made between 'Christ' (the divine) and Jesus (the human); the latter suffered actually, the
former indirectly ('filius patitur, pater vero compatitur.' (Tert.) -rhv XJarepa av/xTrewuvflevai t(^ vltf, Hipp.; it is
clear that under 'Praxeas 'Tertullian is combating also the modified Praxeanism of Callistus. See adv. Erax.
27, 29 ; Hipp. ix. 7) ; not without reason does Hippolytus charge Callistus with combining the errors of Sabellius
with those of Theodotus. The compromise of Callistus was only partially successful. On the one hand the
' While yet the distinction hetweeti the 'presence' and 'ex-
istence ' of God in Christ (Newman, A r. 4. p. 123) is very delicate :
both ideas are covered by ' Dasein.' The two forms of Monarch-
ianism are related exactly as the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity
is to the Nestorian.
2 Our authorities are Hippolytus Philosophum., Tertullian
Against Praxeas, and the early fragment 'against heresies'
printed in TertulHan's works. The statements of Tertullian and
Hippolytus agree remarkably, though obviously independent.
The first (modalist) Monarchian teacher in Rome was Praxeas
(Tert.) from Asia, who was followed by the pupils of Noetus,
also an Asiatic (Hippol.), Epigonus (Renan Marc-Anrele 230,
note, identifies 'Praxeas' with Epigonus; I cannot undertake
to pronounce upon the point, but see Harnack, Dogtng. i'. p. 608),
and Cleomenes. Praxeas arrived in Rome under Victor(or earlier,
Harnack, p. 610), and combined strong opposition to Montanism,
with equally strong modalism in his theology. In both respects
his^influence told upon the heads of the Church. Montanism was
expelled, Modalism tolerated, Theodotus excommunicated; ' Duo
negotia diaboli Praxeas Romae procuravit : prophetiam expulit
et hzeresin intulit : Paracletum fugavit et Patrem crucifixit.'
(Tert.) ' Praxeas hasresin introduxit quam Victor[inus] (perhaps
a confusion with Zephyrinus) corroborare curavit' ('Tertullian'
adv. Hitr.)
3 This point is still in debate. Against it, see Lightfoot,
.y. Ctement 0/ Rome (ed. 1890), for it, Bollinger Hipp. atS- Call.,
and Neumann, Der Rom. Stoat u. d. Allg. Kirche (Leipz. i8qo).
ANTECEDENTS OF ARIANISM : ORIGEN. xxv
strictly modalist Sabellius, who from about 215 takes the place of Cleomenes at the head of Roman Monarch-
ianism (his doctrine of the vioTrdraip, of the Trinity as successive Trpoawn-a, 'aspects,' of the One God, pure
modalism as defined above) scorned compromise (he constantly reproached Callistus with having changed his front,
Hipp.) was excommunicated, and becaine the head of a sect. And the fierce opposition of Hippolytus failed to
command the support of more than a limited circle of enthusiastic admirers, or to maintain itself after his death.
On the other hand (the process is quite in obscurity : see Harnack i', p. 620) the theology of Hippolytus and
Tertullian eventually gained the day. Novatian, whose 'grande volumen ' (Jer. ) on the Trinity represents the
theology of Rome about 250 A.D., simply 'epitomises Tertullian,' and that in explanation of the Rule of Faith. As
to the Generation of the Son, he drops the ' quando Ipse [Pater] voluit' of Tertullian, but like him combines a
(modified) ' subordination ' with the ^ commttnio substantia; ' — in other words the ofxcovaiou. Monarchianism was
condemned in the West ; its further history belongs to the East (under the name of Sabellianism first in Libya :
see pp. 173, sqq.). But the hold which it maintained upon the Roman Church for about a generation (190 — 220)
left its mark. Rome condemned Origen, the ally of Hippolytus ; Rome was invoked against Dionysius of Alex-
andria ; (Rome and) the West formulated the bp.oovaiov at Nicaea ; Rome received Marcellus ; Rome rejected the
Tpe?s viromaans and supported the Eustathians at Antioch ; it was with Rome rather than with the prevalent
theology of the East that Athanasius felt himself one. (Cf. also Harnack, Z>^. iSp. 622 sqq.) Monarchianism was
too little in harmony with the New Testament, or with the traditional convictions of the Churches, to live as a
formulated theology. The ' naive modalism ' of the ' simplices quae major semper pars credentium est ' (Tert.)
was corrected as soon as the attempt was made to give it formal expression 3«. But the attempt to do so was a
valuable challenge to the conception of God involved in the system of the Apologists. To their abstract, trans-
cendent, philosophical first Principle, Monarchianism opposed a living, self-revealing, redeeming God, made
knov^'n in Christ. This was a great gain. But it was obtained at the expense of the divine immutability. A God
who passed through phases or modes, now Father, now Son, now Spirit, a God who could suffer, was not the
God of the Christians. There is some justice in Tertullian's scoff at their ' Deum versipellem.'
The third great name associated with the end of the second century, that of Clement, is important to us
chiefly as that of the teacher of Origen, whose influence we must now attempt to estimate. Origen (185 — 254)
was the first theologian in the full sense of the term ; the first, that is, to erect upon the basis of the rule of
faith (Preface to de Princ.) a complete theological system, synthesising revealed religion with a theory of the
Universe, of God, of man, which should take into account the entire range of truth and knowledge, of faith and
philosophy. And in this sense for the Eastern Church he was the last theologian as well. In the case of Origen
the Vincentian epigram, absolviintur magistri condemnantur discipidi (too often applicable in the history of
doctrine) is reversed. In a modified form his theology from the first took possession of the Eastern Church ; in
the Cappadocian fathers it took out a new lease of power, in spite of many vicissitudes it conquered opposing
forces (the sixth general council crushed the party who had prevailed at the fifth) ; John of Damascus, in whom
the Eastern Church says its last word, depends upon the Origenist theology of Basil and the Gregories. But this
theology was Origenism with a difference. What was the Origenism of Origen ? To condense into the compass
of our present purpose the many-sidedness of Origen is a hopeless task. The reader will turn to the fifth and
sixth of Bigg's Bampton Lectures for the best recent presentation ; to Newman's Aiians (I. § 3), especially the
'apology' at the end); to Harnack (ed. i, pp. 510 — 556) and Loofs (§ 28) ; Shedd (vol. i. 288 — 305, should be
read before Bigg and corrected by him) and Dorner ; to the sections in Bull {Dejcns. ii. 9, iii. 3) and Petavius
(who in Trin. I. iv. pursues with fluent malignity ' omnigenis errorum portentis infamem scriptorem ') ; to the
Origeniana of Huet and the dissertations of the standard editors ; to the article Origenist Controversies, and
to the comprehensive, exact, and sympathetic article Origen in the Dictionary of Christian Biography. The
fundamental works of Origen for our purpose are the de Principiis, the contra Celstim, and the de Oratione ; but
the exegetical works aie necessary to fill out and correct first impressions.
The general position of Origen with regard to the Person of Christ is akin to that of Hippolytus and Ter-
tullian. It is to some extent determined by opposition to Gnosticism and to Monarchianism. His visit to
Rome (Eus. H. E., vi. 14) coincided with the battle of Hippolytus against Zephyrinus and his destined suc-
cessor : on practical as well as on doctrinal points he was at one with Hippolytus. His doctrine of God is
reached by the soteriological rather than the cosmological method. God is known to us in the Incarnate
Word; 'his point of view is moral, not . . . pseudo-metaphysical' The impassibility of the abstract philoso-
phical idea of God is broken into by 'the passion of Love' (Bigg, p. 158). In opposition to the perfection
of God lies the material world, conditioned by evil, the result of the exercise of will. This cause of evil is
antecedent to the genesis of the material universe, the k a t a SoAij KSa/xou ; materiality is the penalty and measure
of evil. (This part of Oiigen's doctrine is markedly Platonic. Plotinus, we read, refused to observe his own
birthday ; in like manner Origen quaintly notes that only wicked men are recorded in Scripture to have kept
their birthdays; Bigg, 203, note; cf. Harnack, p. 523, note.) The soul {\i<vxri as if from i|/iix6ff6ai) has in
a previous state ' waxed cold,' i.e. lost its original integrity, and in this condition enters the body, i.e. 'is sub-
jected to vanity ' in common with the rest of the creature, and needs redemption (qualify this by Bigg, pp. 202
sqq., on Origen's belief in Original Sin). To meet this need the Word takes a Soul (but one that has never
swerved from Him in its pre-existent state : on this antinomy Bigg, 190, note, 199) and mediante Anima, or
rather mediante hac substantia animx {Prin. II. vi.) unites the nature of God and of Man in One. (On the
union of the two natures in the %i6.v&pu>TTos, in Ezek. iii. 3, he is as precise as Tertullian : we find the Hypostatic
Union and Communicatio Idiomatum formally explicit; Bigg, 190.) The Word 'deities' Human Nature, first
His Own, then in others as well {Cels. iii. 28, 'iva. yiv-nraL deia: he does not use Beoiroie'ifTeai ; the thought
is subtly but really different from that which we found in Irenteus : see Harnack, p. 551), by that perfect appre-
hension of Him ontp 7iu wplv yfi'riTai adp^, of which faith in the Incarnate is the earliest but not the final stage
(applying 2 Cor. v. 16 ; cf the Commentary on the Song of Songs).
What account then does Origen give of the beginning and the end of the great Drama of existence? He
starts from the end, which is the more clearly revealed ; ' God shall be all in all' But ' the end must be like
the beginning ; ' One is the end of all, One is the beginning. From i Cor. xv. he works back to Romans viii. :
the one is his key to the eternity after, the other, to the eternity before (Bigg pp. 193 sq.). Into this scheme
he brings creation, evil, the history of Revelation, the Church and its life, the final consummation of all things.
3» But only at Aquileia was the rule of faith adapted by the insertion of impassibilis.
/
XXVI
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 3 (2).
The Universe is eternal : God is prior to it in conception, yet He was never other than Creator, But ia
the history ot the Universe the material world which we know is but a small episode. It began, and will end.
It began with the estrangement of Will from God, will end with its reconciliation : God, from Whom is the
beginning of all, ' will be all in all.' (For Origen's eschatology see Bigg, 228 — 234.) From this point of view we
must approach the two-sided Christology of Origen. To him the two sides were aspects of the same thing : but
if the subtle presupposition as to God and the Universe is withdrawn, they become alternative and inconsistent
Christologies, as we shall see to have actually happened. As God is eternally Creator, so He is eternally Father
(Bigg, 160, note). The Son proceeds from Him not as a part of His Essence, but as the Ray from the Light ; it
cannot be rightly or piously said that He had a beginning, i]v cm uvk ^1/ (cf. De Princ. i. 2, iv. 28, and infr.
p. 168) ; He is begotten /ww ^/^i? ^j.y(f«« of the Father, Ht^s of the same essence {bfjioovaioi){^Fragm.'i in IIeb.,h\iA.
see Bigg, p. 179), there is no unlikencss zvhatever between the Son and the Father {Princ. i. 2, 12). He was be-
gotten 6« rov QeK-hixoLTos tov Uarpos (but to Origen the efArj/uo was inherent in the Divine Nature, cf. Bigg. 161,
Harnack, p. 534 against Shedd, p. 301, note) not by npo&o\ii or emanation {Princ. iv. 2S, i. 2. 4), as though the
Son's generation were something that took place once for all, instead of existing continuously. The Father is in
the Son, the Son in the Father : there is ' coinherence.' On the other hand, the Word is God derivatively not
absolutely, 'O A-o-yos i)v nph<: rhv @s6v, Koi 0eb$ i]v b \6yos. The Son is ©eds, the Father alone & ©eiis. He is of
one ovffia with the Father as compared with the creatures ; but as contrasted with the Father, Who may be
regarded as (ireKtiva ovaias ', and Who alone is avToQeos, avroayados, aA-ndiphs 6e6s, the Son is 6 Seiirtpoi deos {Cels.
V. 39, cf. Philo's Sei/Tepeuoji' deoi). As the Son of God, He is contrasted with all yevrjTa. ; as contrasted with the
Ingenerate Father, He stands at the head of the series of ytvvr)Td ; He is |xeTa|i; ttjs rov a.yfv\_v'\-i]Tijv koi t^j tooi'
yev7)Ta>v (pvcrews'. He even explains the Unity of the Father and the Son as moral {5vo rfj virocrdcrei wpay/iara,
€v Se TTJ bfjLovoia Ka] rf] TavTOT-nn rov ^ov\r\ixaros, Cels. viii. 12). The Son takes His place even in the cosmic
process from Unity to Unity through Plurality, ' God is in every respect One and Simple, but the Saviour by
reason of the Many becomes Many ' (on John i. 22, cf. Index to this vol., s.v. Christ). The Spirit is subordinated
to the Son, the Son to the Father (eAaTTaic irapa rhf iraripa 6 viiis . . . eri 5e firrov rb irviVfxa rb ayiov, Princ. I. 3,
5 Gk.), while to the Spirit are subordinated created spirits, whose goodness is relative in comparison with God,
and the fall of some of whom led to the creation of matter (see above). Unlike the Son and the Spirit
they are mutable in will, subject to ■n-puKoir'f], capable of embodiment even if in themselves immaterial.
The above slender sketch of the leading thoughts of Origen will suffice to show how intimately his doctrine
of the Person of Christ hangs together with his philosophy of Religion and Nature. That philosophy is the
philosophy of his age, and must be judged relatively. His deeply religious, candid, piercing spirit embodies
the highest effort of the Christian intellect conditioned by the categories of the best thought of his age.
Everywhere, while evading no difficulty, his strenuous speculative search is steadied by ethical and religious
instinct. As against Valentinian and the Platonists, with both of whom he is in close affinity, he inexorably
insists on the self-consciousness and moral nature of God, on human freewill. As against all contemporary
non-Christian thought his system is pure monism. Vet the problem of evil, in which he merges the anti-
thesis of matter and spirit, brings with it a necessary dualism, a dualism, however, which belongs but to
a moment in the limitless eternity of God's all-in-allness before and after. Is he then a pantheist ? No, for to
him God is Love {in Ezek. vi. 6), and the rational creature is to be made divine and united to God by the
reconciliation of Will and by conscious apprehension of Him. The idea of Will is the pivot of Origen's
system, the centripetal force which forbids it to follow the pantheistic line which it yet undoubtedly touches.
The 'moral' unity of the Father and the Son (see above, ravrbrrii ^uvKrinaros and ew rod 6f\-fifxaT0i) is Unity in
that very respect in which the Creator stands over against the self-determining rational creature. Yet the im-
mutability, the Oneness of God, must be reconciled with the plurality, the mutability of the creature ; here the
Logos mediates, Sia, to ttoWo. yivirai. ivoWa. : but this must be from eternity : — accordingly creation is eternal too.
Here we see that the cosmological idea has prevailed over the religious, the Logos of Origen is still in important
particulars the Logos of the Apologists, of Philo and the philosophers. The difference lies in His co-eternity,
upon which Origen insists without wavering. The resemblance lies in the intermediate ^ position ascribed to
Film between the kyivvr)Tos, {b ©edj), and the yivrjrd ; He is, as Hypostasis, subordinate to the Father.
Now it is evident that the mere intellectual apprehension of a system which combines so many opposite
tendencies, which touches every variety of the theological thought of the age (even modalism, for to Origen the
Father is the Muvay, the ahroQios, while yet He is no abstraction but a God who exists in moral activity, supra)
and subtly harmonises them all, must have involved no ordinary philosophical power. When we add to this
fact the further consideration that precisely the fundamental ideas of Origen were those which called forth the
liveliest opposition and were gradually dropped by his followers, we can easily understand that in the next gene-
ration Origenism was no longer either the system of Origen, or a single system at all.
In one direction it could lend itself to no compromise ; in spite of the justice done by Origen to the funda-
mental ideas both of modalism and of emanative adoptionism (cf. Harnack, pp. 548, note, and 586), to Monarch-
ianism in either form he is diametrically opposed. The hypostatic distinctness of Son and Spirit is once for all
made good for the theology of Eastern Cliristendom. We see his disciples exterminate Monarchianism in the
East. On the left wing Dionysius refutes the Sabellians of Libya, on the right Gregory Thaumaturgus, Firmilian,
and their brethren, after a long struggle, oust the adoptionist Paul from the See of Antioch. But its influence on
the existing Catholic theology, however great (and in the East it was very great), inevitably made its way in the face
of opposition, and at the cost of its original subtle consistency. The principal opposition came from Asia Minor,
where the traditions of theological thought (see above, on Ignatius and Irenseus, below on Marcellus) were not in
sympathy* with Origen. We cannot demonstrate the existence of a continuous theological school in Asia ; but
» See Newman'snote Ar. p. 186, where the additions in brackets
seriously modify his statement in the text. Also cf. infr. oh. iv.
§ 3, and Bigg, p. 179, note 2. '
2 Cels. iii. 34, cf. Alexander's jixe<rtT€uov(ra <|>u<rts fi.oj'oyei'^s.
But observe that the passage insisted on by Shedd, 294, eVepos
Ko-r ovo'Cav /cat VTroKeifi.€vov 6 utb? tov Trarpos, does not bear
the sense he extracts from it. ovai'a here is not ' essence ' but
' hypostasis.'
3 The formula /cnV/xa 6 vids is ascribed to Origen by the anti-
Chalcedonists of the sixth century, but is probably a ' consequenz-
macherei ' from the above ; see Caspar! A tie u. N. Quelien, p. 60,
note. But n-ritrixa was sometimes applied to the Son in a vague
sense, on the ground of Prov. viii. 22, a text not used in this way
by Origen.
4 Compare the strong Origenist rejection of Chiliasm, the
spiritualism of Origen as contrasted with the realism of Asia
Minor, the Asiatic origin of Roman Monarchianism, of Montan-
ism.
ANTECEDENTS OF ARIANISM : PAUL AND LUCIAN. xxvii
Methodius (270 — 300) certainly speaks with the voice of Ignatius and irenajus. He deals with Origen much as
Irenseus dealt with the Gnostics, defending against him the current sense of the regula fidei, and especially the
literal meaning of Scripture, the origination of the soul along with the body, the resurrection of the body in the
material sense, and generally opposing realism to the spiritualism of Origen. But in thus opposing Origen,
Methodius is not uninfluenced by him (see Socr. vi. 13). He, too, is a student of Plato (with 'little of his style or
spirit ') ; his ' realism ' is ' speculative.' He no longer defends the Asiatic Chiliasm, his doctrine of the Logos is
■coloured by Origen as that of Irenasus was by the Apologists. The legacy of Methodius and of his Oris^enist contem-
poraries to the Eastern Church was a modified Origenisni, that is a theology systematised on the intellectual basis of
the Platonic philosophy, but expurgated by the standard of the regula fidei. This result was a compromise, and
was at first attended with great confusion. Origen's immediate following seized some one side, some another of
his system ; some were more, some less influenced by the ' orthodox ' reaction against his teaching. We may
distinguish an Origenist ' right ' and an Origenist ' left.' If the Origenist view of the Universe was given up, the
coeternity of the Son and Spirit with the Father was less firmly grasped. Origen had, if we may use the expres-
sion, ' levelled up.' The Son was mediator between the Ingenerate God and the created, but eternal Universe.
If the latter was not eternal, and if at the same time the Word stood in some essential correlation to the creative
■energy of God, Origen's system no longer implied the strict coeternity of the Word. Accordingly we find
Dionysius (see below, p. 173 sqq^ uncertain on this point, and on the essential relation ot the Son to the Father.
More cautious in this respect, but tenacious of other startling features of Origen, were Pierius and Theognostus,
who presided over the Catechetical School at the end of the century s.
On the other hand, very many of Origen's pupils, especially among the bishops, started ixom the other side of
■Origen's teaching, and held tenaciously to the coeternity of the Son, while they abandoned the Origenist
'paradoxes' with regard to the Universe, matter, pre existence, and restitution. Typical of this class is Gregory
Thaumaturgus, also Peter the martyr bishop of Alexandria, who expressly opposed many of Origen's positions
{though hardly with the violence ascribed to him in certain supposed fragments in Routh, Rell. iv. 81) and Alexander
himself. It was this ' wing ' of the Origenist following that, in combination with the opposition represented by
Methodius, bequeathed to the generation contemporary with Nicsea its average theological tone. The coeternity
of the Son with the Father was not (as a rule) questioned, but the essential relation of the Logos to the Creation
involved a strong subordination of the Son to the Father, and by consequence of the Spirit to the Son. Monarch-
ianism was the heresy most dreaded, the theology of the Church was based on the philosophical categories of
Plato applied to the explanation and systematisation of the rule of faith. This was very far from Arianism. It
lacked the logical definiteness of that system on the one hand, it rested on the other hand on a different concep-
tion of God ; the hypostatic subordination of the Son was insisted upon, but His true Sonship as of one Nature
-with the Father, was held fast. In the slow process of time this neo-Asiatic theology found its way partly to the
Nicene formula, partly to the illogical acceptance of it with regard to the Son, with refusal to apply it to the Spirit
{Macedonius). To the men who thought thus, the blunt assertion that the Son was a creature, not coeternal,
alien to the Essence of the Father, was a novelty, and wholly abhorrent. Arius drew a sharper line than they had
been accustomed to draw between God and the creature ; so did Athanasius. But Arius drew his line without
flinching between the Father and the Son. This to the instinct of any Origenist was as revolting as it would
have been to the clear mind and Biblical sympathy of Origen himself. In theological and philosophical
principles alike Arius was opposed even to the tempered Origenism of the Nicene age. The latter was at the
furthest remove from Monarchianism, Arianism was in its essential core Monarchian ; the common theology
borrowed its philosophical principles and method from the Platonists, Arius from Aristotle. To anticipate,
Arianism and (so-called) semi-Arianism have in reality very little in common except the historical
fact of common action for a time. Arianism guarded the transcendence of the diviiie nature
(at the expense of revelation and redemption) in a way that 'semi-Arianism,' admitting as
it did inherent inequality in the Godhead, did not. They therefore tended in opposite
directions; Arianism to Anomoeanism, 'semi-Arianism' to the Nicene faith; their source
was diff'erent. 'Aristotle made men Arians,' says Newman with truth, ' Plato, semi-Arians'
{Avians *, p. 335, note) : but to say this is to allow that if Arianism goes back to Lucian and so to Paul
of Samosata, semi-Arianism is a fragment from the wreck of Origen.
The Origenist bishops of Syria and Asia Minor had in the years 269—272, after several efforts, succeeded in
deposing Paul of Samosata from the See of Antioch. This remarkable man was the ablest pre-Nicene represen-
tative of Adoptionist Monarchianism. The Man Jesus was inhabited by the ' Word, ' i.e. by an impersonal ^ow ex of
God, distinct from the A070S or reason (wisdom) inherent in God as an attribute, which descended upon him at His
Baptism. His union with God, a union of Will, was unswerving, and by virtue of it He overcame the sin of man-
kind, worked miracles, and entered on a condition of Deification. He is God e'/c 7rpo«:oir^s (cf. Luke ii. 52) by virtue
of progress in perfection. That is in brief the system of Paul, and we cannot wonder at his deposition. For the
striking points of contact with Arianism (two 'Wisdoms,' two 'Words,' TrpoKoiri) : cf. Oral. c. Ar. i. 5, &c.) we
have to account *. The theology of Arius is a compromise between the Origenist doctrine of the Person of Christ
and the pure Monarchian Adoptionism of Paul of Samosata ; or rather it engrafts the former upon the latter as the
5 The position of Euskbius of Csesarea is at the ' extreme is largely based upon the late and apparently quite erroneous
left' of the Origenist body. ('A reflex of the unsolved problems tradition that his patroness Zenobia was a Jewess; see p. 296,
of the Church of that time," Corner.) It is as though Dionysius note 9', and Gwatkin, p. 57, and note 3. Harnack: regards
instead of withdrawing and modiiyin: iiis incriminated statements, him as the representative of 'archaic' East-Syrian adoption-
had involved them in a haze of explanations and biblical phrases ism such as pervades the ' Discussion of Archelaus with Manes ;
which left them where they were. But this is not so much Arian- see Routh, Rett. v. especially pp. i78-;i84. But Paul would
ism as confusion. 'AH is hollow and empty, precarious and am- not have spoken of Mary as ' Dei Genetnx, p. 128 ; 1 cannot see
biguous. With a vast apparatus of biblical expressions and the more in these 'Acta' than a naive adoptionism homologous to
use of every possible formula, Monotheism is indeed maintained, the 'naive modalism' of much early Christian language, but
but practically a created subordinate God is inserted between God like it not representative of the entire view of those who use itj
and mankind' fHarnack, p. 648). See also Donier, Lekre der we must also note that the statements of ' Archelaus are coloured
/"^rj. C^r. Pt. I, pp. 793— 798. The language quoted by Ath. by reaction against the docetism of Manes; but Paul may well
below, p. 450, was doubtless meant by Eusebius in an Origenist have taken up this naive adoptionism, and, ^y strict Anstoteiian.
sense /iTg^jc, developed it as the exclusive basis of his system. Whether
6 The theological genesis of Paul's system is obscure. The Paul's use of the idea of the Logos betrays the faintest influence
theory of Newmad' that he was under strong Jewish influences ' of Origen is to me, at least, extremely uncertain.
XXVlll
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 3 (2).
foundation principle, seriously modifying each to suit the necessity of combining the two. This compromise was
not due to Arius himself but to his teacher, Lucian the Martyr. A native himself of Samosata, he stood in some
relation of attachment (not clearly defineable) to Paul. Under him, he was at the head of a critical, exegetical, and
theological school at Antioch. Upon the deposition of Paul he appears not so much to have been formally
excommunicated as to have refused to acquiesce in the new order of things. Under Domnus and his two
successors, he was in a state of suspended communion 7 ; but eventually was reconciled with the bishop (Cyril ?)
and died as a martyr at Nicomedia, Jan. 7,312. The latter fact, his ascetic life, and his learning secured him wide-
spread honout in the Church ; his pupils formed a compact and enthusiastic brotherhood, and filled many of the
most influential Sees after the persecution. That such a man should be involved in the reproach of having given
birth to Arianism is an unwelcome result of history, but one not to be evaded '. The history of the Lucianic com-
promise and its result in the Lucianic type of theology, are both matters of inference rather than of direct
knowledge. As to the first, whatever evidence there is connects Lucian's original position with Paul. His
reconciliation with Bishop Cyril must have involved a reapproachment to the formula of the bishops who
deposed Paul, — a thoroughly Origenist document. We may therefore suppose that the identificalion of Christ
with the Logos, or cosmic divine principle, was adopted by him from Origenist sources. But he could not bring
himself to admit that He was thus essentially identified with God the eternal ; he held fast to the idea of vpoKoirri
as the path by which the Lord attained to Divinity ; he distinguished the Word or Son who was Christ from the
immanent impersonal Reason or Wisdom of God, as an offspring of the Father's JVi//, an idea which he may have
derived straight from Origen, with whom of course it had a different sense. For to Origen Will was the very
essence of God ; Lucian fell back upon an arid philosophical Monotheism, upon an abstract God fenced about
with negations (Harnack 2^, 195, note) and remote from the Universe. It was counted a departure from Lucian's
principles if a pupil held that the Son was the ' perfect Image of the Father's Essence ' (Philost. ii. 15) ; Origen's
formula, 'distinct in hypostasis, but one in will,' was apparently exploited in a Samosatene sense to express the
relation of the Son to the Father. T/ie only hvo points in fact in tvhich Lucian appears to have modified the systetn oj
Paid were, firstly in hypostatising the Logos, which to Paul was an impersonal divine power, secondly in abandon-
ing Paul's purely human doctrine of the historical Christ. To Lucian, the Logos assumed a body (or rather
' Deus sapientiam suatn misit in hunc mundum rarw^vestitam, ubi infra, p. 6), but itself took the place of a soul^ ;
hence all the ratmval Ae'|6is of the Gospels applied to the Logos as such, and the inferiority and essential differ-
ence of the Son from the Father rigidly followed.
The above account of Lucian is based on that of Harnack, Doging. ii. 184, sqq. It is at once in harmony
with all our somewhat scanty data (Alexander, Epiphanius, Philostorgius, and the fragment of his last confession
of faith preserved by Rufin. in Eus. H. E. ix. 9, Routh, Rell. iv. pp. 5 — 7, from wliich Harnack rightly starts)
and is the only one which accounts for the phenomena of the rise of Arianism. We find a number of leading
Churchmen in agreement with Arius, but in no way dependent on him. They are Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris,
Theognis, Athanasius of Anazarba, Menophantus ; all Lucianists. The first Arian writer, Asterius (see below),
is a Lucianist. (The Egyptian bishops Secundus and Theonas cannot be put down to any school ; we do not
know their history ; but they are distinguished from the Lucianists by Philost. ii. 3.) It has been urged that,
although Arius brought away heresy from the school of Lucian, yet he was not the only one that did so. True \
but then the heresy was all of the same kind (list of pupils of Lucian in Philost. ii. 14, iii. 15). Aetius, the
founder of logical ultra- Arianism and teacher of Eunomius, was taught the expgesis of the New Testament by
the Lucianists Athanasius of Anazarba and Antony of Tarsus, of the Old by the Lucianist Leontius. This fairly
covers the area of Arianism proper. But it may be noted that some Origenists of the ' left wing,' whose theology
emphasized the subordination, and vacillated as to the eternity of the Son, would find little to shock them in
Arianism (Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyre), while on the other hand there are traces of a Lucianist 'right
wing,' men like Asterius, who while essentially Arian, made concessions to the 'conservative' position chiefly
by emphasising the cosmic mediation of the Word and His ' exact likeness ' to the Fathers. The Theology of ihe
Eastern Church was suffering irom the effort to assimilate the Origenist theology : it could not do so without
eliminating the underlying and unifying idea of Origenism ; this done, the overwhelming influence of the great
teacher remained, while dissonant fragments of his system, vaguely comprehended in many cases, permeated some
here, some there'*. Meanwhile the school of Lucian had a method and a system ; they knew their own minds,
and relied on reason and exegesis. This was the secret of their power. Had Arius never existed, Arianism must
have tried its strength under such conditions. But the age was ready for Arius ; and Arius was ready. The
system of Arius was in effect that of Lucian : its formulation appears to have been as much the work of Asterius
as of Arius himself. (Cf. p. 155, § 8, 0 Se 'Ap. /.tera^pail/as SeScufce toTs iSi'ois. The extant writings of Arius are
his letters to Eus. Nic. and to Alexander, preserved by Theodoret and Epiph. Har. 69, and the extracts from
the 'Thalia' in Ath., pp.308 — 311, 457, 458; also the 'confession' in Socr. i. 26, Soz. ii. 27. Cf. alsa
references to his dicta in Ath. pp. 185, 229, &c. ) Arius started from the idea of God and the predicate 'Son.'
God is above all things uncreated, or unoriginate, a7ei'[i/]7?Toj, (the ambiguity of the derivatives oi yivraadai and
7 aTToa-uvayioyoi (fieivev, Alex. Alexand. in Thdt. ; the objec-
tions of Gwatkin, p. 18, note, are generously meant rather than
convincing: the 'creed of Lucian' is not usable without dis-
criminauon for Lucian's position : see discussion by Caspari
A.U.N. Q. p. 42, note.
lit was pointed out clearly by Newman, Arians, pp. 8, 403,
but with an eagerly drawn inference to the discredit of the later
Antiochene School and of the genuine principles of exegesis as
recognised at the present day by Protestants and Catholics alike
(see Wetzer und Welte-Kaulen, Kirchen-Lexicon, i. 953 sqq.,
iv. 1 1 16, and Patrizzi as abridged in Cornel, a Lap. in Apoc.
ed. Par. 1859, PP- ^'^'- -^W- The Lucianic origin of Arianism was
denied by Gwatkin in his Studies, but the denial is tacitly with-
drawn m\i\i Arian Controversy. Harnack, Dogmgesch. i'. 598,
ii^. 183 sqq. must, I think, convince any open mind of the (act.
Consult his article on Lucian in Herzog^. viii. 767 (the best
investigation),- also Neander H.E. ii. 198, iv. 108 ; Moller K.G. i.
226, D.C.B. iii. 748 ; Kiilling, vol. i, pp. 27 — 31, who makes the
mistake of taking the ' Lucianic creed ' as his point of departure.
2 This is ascribed to Lucian by Epiph. Ancor. 33, and there
is no reason whatever to doubt it. "I'he tenet was part of the
Arian system from the first, and was attacked already by Eusta-
thius, Fragm. apud Thdt. Dial. iii. , but often overlooked, e.g. even'
by Athanasius in his writings before 362, but see p. 352, note 5.
It came to the front in the system of Eunomius, and was much
discussed in the last decade of the life of S. Athan. The system
of Apollinaris was different. (See pp. 570, note i, 575, note i.)
3 aTTapaAAaxTOi' etKOftt, which an Arian would be prepared
to admit as the result of the jrpojcoTnj. (See below, § 6, on the
Creeds of 341). I cannot regard Asterius as a ' .sf>«/-Arian ; '
the only grounds for it are the above phrase and the statement
(^Lib. Syn.) that he attended the Council of 341 with the Con-
servative Dianius. But Asterius was as ready to compromise
with conservatism as he had formerly been with heathenism, and
his anxiety for a bishopric would carry him to even greater
lengths in order to attend a council under influential patronage.
4 The letter of Alexander to his namesake of Byzantium xa,
Thdt. i. 4, cannot be exempted from this generalisation
TPIEOLOGY OF ARIUS.
XXIX
7€feVfla; are a very important element in the controversy. See p. 475, note 5, and Lightfoot, Ignat. ii. p. 90 sqq.)
Everything else is created, ■ytvr)T6v. The name ' Son ' implies an act of procreation. Therefore, before such act,
there was no Son, nor was God properly speaking a Father. The Son is not coeternal with Him. He was
originated by the Father's will, as indeed were all things. He is, then, twv yev7)TS>v, He came into being from
non-existence (el ovk ovrwv), and before that did not exist {ovk ?iv wp\v ydv-nrai). But His relation to God differs
from that of the Universe generally. Created nature cannot bear the awful touch of bare Deity. God therefore
created the Son that He in turn might be the agent in the Creation of the Universe— ' created Him as the
beginning of His ways,' (Prov. viii. 22, LXX.). This being so, the nature of the Son was in the essential pouit
of a76j'f7)(ria unlike that of the Father; (^eVos rov vlov kut* ovalav 6 Tlarrip on &vapxos) : their substances (uiro-
ardafts) are aveirif/.iKrot, — have nothing in common. The Son therefore does not possess the fundamental property
of sonship, identity of nature with the Father. He is a Son by Adoption, not by Nature ; He has advanced by
moral probation to be Son, even to be /xoyoyev^s Beds (Joh. i. 14). He is not the eternal A6yos, reason, of God,
but a Word (and God has spoken many) : but yet He is the Word by grace ; is no longer, what He is by nature,
subject to change. He cannot know the Father, much less make Him known to others. Lastly, He dwells in
flesh, not in full human nature (see above, p. xxviii. and note 2). The doctrine of Arius as to the Holy Spirit
is not recorded, but probably He was placed between the Son and the other KTicrfiara (yet see Harnack ii.
199, note 2).
Arian Literature. Beside the above-mentioned letters and fragments of Arius, our early Arian documents
are scanty. Very important is the letter of Eus. Nic. to Paulinus, referred to above, § 3 (i), pp. xvi., xviii., other
fragments of letters, p. 458 sq. The writings s of Asterius, if preserved, would have been an invaluable source
of information ^. Asterius seems to have written before the Nicene Council ; he may have modified his language
in later treatises. He was replied to by Marcellus in a work which brought him into controversy (336) with
Eusebius of Csesarea. With the creeds and Arian literature after the death of Constantine we are not at present
concerned.
Arianism was a novelty. Yet it combines in an inconsistent whole elements of almost every previous attempt
to formulate the doctrine of the Person of Christ. Its sharpest antithesis was Modalism : yet with the modalist
Arius maintained the strict personal unity of the Godhead. With dynamic monarchianism it held the adoptionist
principle in addition ; but it personified the Word and sacrificed the entire humanity of Christ. In this latter
respect it sided with the Docetge, most Gnostics, and Manichaeans, to all of whom it yet opposes a sharply-cut
doctrine of creation and of the transcendence of God. With Origen and the Apologists before him it made much
of the cosmic mediation of the Word in contrast to the redemptive work of Jesus ; with the Apologists, though
not with Origen, it enthroned in the highest place the God of the Philosophers : but against both alike it drew a
sharp broad line between the Creator and the Universe, and drew it between the Father and the Son. Least of
all is Arianism in sympathy with the theology of Asia, — that of Ignatius, Irenaeus, Methodius, founded upon the
Joannine tradition. The profound Ignatian idea of Christ as the I\.6yo% ano <nyris irpoeXBiii/ is in impressive con-
trast with the shallow challenge of the Thalia, ' Many words hath God spoken, which of these was manifested in
the flesh?'
Throughout the controversies of the pre-Nicene age the question felt rather than seen in the background is
that of the idea of God. The question of Monotheism and Polytheism which separated Christians from heathen
was not so much a question of abstract theology as of religion, not one of speculative belief, but of worship. The
Gentile was prepared to recognise in the background of his pantheon the shadowy form of one supreme God,
Father of gods and men, from whom all the rest derived their being. But his religion required the pantheon as
well ; he could not worship a philosophic supreme abstraction. The Christian on the other hand was prepared
in many cases to recognise the existence of beings corresponding to the gods of the heathen (whether i Cor. viii. 5
can be quoted here is open to question). But such beings he would not worship. To him, as an object of
religion, there was one God, The one God of the heathen was no object of practical personal religion ; the One
God of the Christian was. He was the God of the Old Testament, the God who was known to His people not
under philosophical categories, but in His dealings with them as a Father, Deliverer, He who would accomplish all
things for them that waited on Him, the God of the Covenant. He was the God of the New Testament, God in
Christ reconciling the world to Himself, manifesting His Righteousness in the Gospel of Christ to whosoever
believed. In Christ the Christian learned that God is Love. Now this knowledge of God is essentially religious ;
it lies in a different plane from the speculative airopiat as to God's transcendence or immanence, while yet it
steadies the religious mind in the face of speculations tending either way. A God who is Love, if immanent,
must yet be personal, if transcendent, must yet manifest His Love in such a way that we can know it and not
merely guess it. Now as Christian instinct began to be forced to reflexion, in other words, as faith began to strive
for expression in a theology 7, it could not but be that men, however personally religious, seized hold of religious
problems by their speculative side. We have seen this exemplified in the influence of Platonic philosophy on the
Apologists and Alexandrine Fathers. But to Origen, with all his Platonism, belongs the honour of enthroning
the God of Love at the head and centre of a systematic theology. Yet the theology of the end of the third
century assimilated secondary results of Origen's system rather than his underlying idea. On the one hand was
the rule of faith with the whole round of Christian life and worship, determining the religious instinct of the
Church ; on the other, the inability to formulate this instinct in a coherent system so long as the central problem
was overlooked or inadequately dealt with. God is One, not more ; yet how is the One God to be conceived of.
S They appear to have comprised the Arian appeal to Scrip-
ture of which (considering the BibUcal learning of Lucian and
what we hear of the training of Aetius, to say nothing of the
exegetical chair held by Arius at Alxa.) their use must be pro-
nounced meagre and superficial. In the O.T. they harped upon
three texts, Deut. vi. 4 {Monotheism), Ps. xlv. 8 [Adoptionism),
and Prov. viii. 22, LXX. (tke Word a Creature). In the N.T.
they appeal for Monotheism (in their sense) to Luke xviii. 19,
John xvii. 3 ; The Son a Creature, Acts ii. 36, i Cor. i. 24, Col.
1. 15, Heb. iii. 2; Adoptionism, Matt. xii. 28; irpoKO-n-l], Luke ii.
52; also Matt. xxvi. 41, Phil. ii. 6, sg., Heb. i. 4; The Son
TpeiTTo;, &c., Mark xiii. 32, John xiii. 31, xi. 34 ; inferior to the
Father, John xiv. 48, Matt, xxvii. 46, also xi. 27 a, xxvi. 39,
xxviii. 18, John xii. 27, and i Cor. xv. 28 fcf. pp. 407, sq.\ In this
respect Origen is immeasurably superior.
6 They are regarded by Athan., a generation after they were
written, as the representative statement of ' the case ' for Arianism
(pp. 459 sq. ; 324 sgg., 361, 363, 368, &c., from which passages
and Eus. c. Marcell, a fragmentary restoration might be at-
tempted). For what is known of his history (not in D.C.B.)
see Gwatkin, p. 72, note ; for his doctrinal position see above,
p. xxviii.
7 A theology which aims at consistency must borrow a method,
a philosophy, from outside the sphere of religion. The most de-
veloped system of Catholic theology, that of S. Thomas Aquinas,
borrows its method from the same source as did Arius, — Arisn tie.
XXX
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 3 (2).
what is His relation to the Universe of yeveats and <p96pa7 and the Son is God, and the Spirit ; how are they One,
and if One how distinct? How do we avoid the relapse into a polytheism of secondary gods ? What is — not the
essential nature of Godhead, for all agreed that that is beyond our ken — but the irpioTov t]ixiv, the essential idea for
us to begin from if we are to synthesise belief and theology, ttiVtis and yvuxns ?
Arianism stepped in with a summary answer. God is one, numerically and absolutely. He is beyond the
ken of any created intelligence. Even creation is too close a relation for Him to enter into with the world. In
order to create, he must create an instrument (pp. 360 j^f^.), intermediate between Himself and all else. This
instrument is called Son of God, i.e. He is not coeternal (for what son was ever as old as his parent?), but the
result of an act of creative will. How then is He different from other creatures? This is the weak point of the
system ; He is not leally different, but a difference is created by investing Him with every possible attribute of glory
and divinity except the possession of the incommunicable nature of deity. He is merely 'anointed above His
fellows.' His 'divinity' is acquired, not original; relative, not absolute; in His character, not in His Person.
Accordingly He is, as a creature, immeasurably far from the Creator ; He does not know God, cannot declare God
to us. The One God remains in His inaccessible remoteness from the creature. But yet Arians worshipped
Christ ; although not very God, He is God to us. Here we have the exact difficulty with which the Church started
in her conflict with heathenism presented again unsolved. The desperate struggle, the hardly earned triumph of
the Christians, had been for the sake of the essential principle of heathenism ! The One God was, after all, the
God of the philosophers ; the idea of pagan polytheism was realised and justified in Christ* I To this Athanasius
returns again and again (see esp. p. 360) ; it is the doom of Arianism as a Christian theology.
If Arianism failed to assist the thought of the Church to a solution of the great problem of Gqd, its failure
was not less conspicuous with regard to revelation and redemption. The revelation of the Gospel stopped short
in the person of Christ, did not go back to the Father. God was 7ioi in Christ reconciling the world to Himself,
we have access in Christ to a created intelligence, not to the love of God to usward, not to the everlasting Arms,
but to a being neither divine nor human. Sinners against heaven and before God, we must accept an assurance of
reconciliation from one who does not know Him whom we have offended ; the kiss of the Father has never been
given to the prodigal Men have asked how we are justified in ascribing to the infinite God the attributes which
we men call good: mercy, justice, love. If Christ is God, the answer lies near ; if He is the Christ of Arius, we
are left in moral agnosticism. Apart from Christ, the philosophical arguments for a God have their force ; they
proffer to us an ennobling belief, a grand ' perhaps ' ; but the historical inability of Monotheism to retain a last-
• ing hold among men apart from revelation is an impressive commentary on their compelling power. In Christ
alone does God lay hold upon the soul with the assurance of His love (Rom. v. 5 — 8 ; Matt. xi. 28 ; John xvii. 3).
The God of Arius has held out no hand toward us ; he is a far-off abstraction, not a living nor a redeeming
God.
The illogicality of Arianism has often been pointed out (Gwatkin, pp. 21 s^g. esp. p. 28) ; how, starting
from the Sonship of Christ, it came round to a denial of His Sonship ; how it started with an interest for
Monotheism and landed in a vindication of polytheism ; how it began from the incomprehensibility of God even
to His Son, and ended (in its most pronounced form) with the assertion that the divine Nature is no mystery at
all, even to us. It is an insult to the memory of Aristotle to call such shallow hasty syllogising from ill-selected
and unsifted first principles by his name. Aristotle himself teaches a higher logic than this. But at this date
Aristotelianism proper was extinct. It only survived in the form of ' pure ' logic, adopted by the Platonists, but
alsc» studied for its own sake in connection with rhetoric and the art of arguing (cf. Socr. ii. 35). Such an instru-
ment might well be a cause of confusion in the hands of men who used it without regard to the conditions of the
subject-matter. An illogical compromise between the theology of Paul of Samosata and of Origen, the marvel is
that Arianism satisfied any one even in the age of its birth. What has been said above with regard to the
conception of God in the early Church may help to explain it ; the germ of ethical insight which is latent
in adoptionism, and which when neglected by the Church has always made itself felt by reaction, must also
receive justice ; once again, its inherent intellectualism was in harmony with the dominant theology of the
Eastern Church, that is with one side of Origenism. Where analogous conditions have prevailed, as for
example in the England of the early eighteenth century, Arianism has tended to reappear with no one of its
attendant incongruities missing.
But for all that, the doom of Arianism was uttered at Nicsea and verified in the six decades which followed.
Every possible alternative formula of belief as to the Person of Christ was forced upon the mind of the early
Church, was fully tried, and was found wanting. Arianism above all was fully tried and above all found lacking.
The Nicene formula alone has been found to render possible the life, to satisfy the instincts of the Church
of Christ. The choice lies— nothing is clearer — between that and the doctrine of Paul of Samosata. The
latter, it has been said, was misunderstood, was never fairly tried. As a claimant to represent the true sense of
Christianity it was I think once for all rejected when the first Apostles gave the right hand of fellowship to
S. Paid (see above, p. xxii.) ; its future trial must be in the form of naturalism, as a rival to Christianity, on the basis
of a denial of the claim of Christ to be the One Saviour of the World, and of His Gospel to be the Absolute
Religion. But Arianism, adding to all the difficulties of a supernatural Christology the spirit of the shallowest
rationalism and the fundamental postulate of agnosticism, can surely count for nothing in the Armageddon of the
latter days,
Spiacente a Dio ed a' nemici suoi.
(b) T^e ojjtooiaiov as a theological formula^.
The distinction, which in the foregoing discussion we have frequently had under our notice, between the
8 This illustrates the famous paradox of Cardinal Newman
(Development, ed. 1878, pp. 142-4), that the condemnation of Arian
Christology left vacant a. throne in heaven which the medieval
Church legitimately filled with the Blessed Virgin ; that the Nicene
condemnation of the Arian theology is the vindication of the
medieval ; that ' the votaries of Mary do not exceed the true faith,
unless the blasphemers of her Son come up to it.' But the
qestion here was one of ivorship, not of theology. The Arians
■worshiJ>ped Christ, whom they regarded as a created being:
therefore, the Nicene fathers urge with one consent, they were
idolaters. The idea of a created being capable of being worshipped
was an Arian legacy to the Church, no doubt. But this very idea,
to Athanasius and Hilary, marked them out as idolaters. It was
reserved for later times ' to find a subject for an Arian predicate '
(Mozleyl. The argument is an astonishing admission.
I The enormous literature of the subject is partly given by
Harnack, ii. p. 182, Schaff, Nicene Christ. §§ 119, 120. Tha
student will find great help from Bigg, Bampt. Led. pp. 179, note
THE HOMOUSION: ITS MEANING. xxxi
irirTTis and yvaxrii of the early Church, the ir/trris common to all, and formulated in the tessera or rule of faith, the
•yfai(Tts the property of apologists and theologians aiming at the expression of faith in terms of the thought of their
age, and at times, though for long only slightly, reacting upon the rule of faith itself (Aquileia, Csesarea, Gregoiy
Thaumaturgus), makes itself felt in the account of the Nicene Council. That the legacy of the first world-v. ide
gathering of the Church's rulers is a Rule of Faith moulded by theological reflexion, one in which the -yvSia.s uf
the Church supplements her tt'kttis, is a momentous fact ; a fact for which we have to thank not Athanasius but
Arius. The tt'kttis of the Fathers repudiated Arianism as a novelty ; but to exclude it from the Church some
test was indispensable ; and to find a test was the task of theology, of 'yvwcris. The Nicene Confession is the Rule
of Faith explained as against Arianism. Arianism stai-ted with the Christian profession of belief in our Lord's
Sonship. If the result was incompatible with such belief, it was inevitable that an explanation should be given,
not indeed of the full meaning of divine Sonship, but of that element in the idea which was ignored or assailed by
the misconception of Arius. Such an explanation is attempted in the v\'ords «« t^s ohalas tov Trarpos, bfioovaiov
rw Xlarpi, and again in the condemnation of the formula 6| kripas inroardaeais ^ ovalas. This explanation was not
adopted without hesitation, nor would it have l:)een adopted had any other barrier against the heresy, which all
but very few wished to exclude, appeared effective. We now have to examine firstly the grounds of this hesi-
tation, secondly the justification of the formula itself.
The objections felt to the word baoovcriov at the council were (l) philosophical, based on the identification of
oiaia with either eiSos (i.e. as implying a 'formal essence ' prior to Father and Son alike) or CAtj ; (2) dogmatic,
based on the identification of ovaia with ToSe rt, and on the consequent Sabellian sense of the o/moovctiov ; (3)
Scriptural, based on the non-occurrence of the word in the Bible ; (4) Ecclesiastical, based on the condemnation
of the word by the Synod which deposed Paul at Antioch in 269.
All these objections were made and felt bona fide, although Arians would of course make the most of them.
The subsequent history will shew that their force was outweighed only for the moment with many of the fathers,
and that to reconcile the ' conservatism ' of the Asiatic bishops to the new formula must be a matter of time. The
third or Scriptural objection need not now be discussed at length. Precedent could be pleaded for the introduc-
tion into creeds of words not expressly found in Scripture (e.g. the word 'catholic' applied to the Church
in many ancient creeds, the creed of Gregory Thaumaturgus witli Tpias reKeia, &c. &c. ) ; the only question was,
were the non-scriptural words expressive of a Scriptural idea ? This was the pith of the question debated between
Athanasius and his opponents for a generation after the council ; the ' conservative ' majority eventually
came round to the conviction that Athanasius was right. But the question depends upon the meaning of
the word itself.
The word means sharing in a joint or common essence, oha'ia (of. oixdpvfios, sharing the same name, &c. &c.).
What then is ovatal The word was introduced into philosophical use, so far as we know, by Plato, and
its technical value was fixed for future ages by his pupil Aristotle. Setting aside its use to express ' existence '
in the abstract, we take the more general use of the word as indicating that which exists in the concrete. In this
sense it takes its place at the centre of his system of ' categories/ as the something to which all detei-minations of
quality, quantity, relation and the rest attach, and which itself attaches to nothing ; in Aristotle's words it alone
is self-existent, x'^P"'"''<5»'» whereas all that comes under any of the other categories is a.x<i>pKrTov, non-existent
except as a property of some ovaia. But here the difficulty begins. We may look at a concrete term as denoting
either this or that individual simply (roSe ri), or as expressing its nature, and so as comvion to more individuals
than one. Now properly (irpciTas) ovaia is only appropriate to the former purpose. But it may be employed in
a secondary sense to designate the latter ; in this sense species and genera are Sei^repai ovaiai, the wider class being
less truly ovaiai than the narrower. In fact we here detect the transition of the idea of ovaia from the category of
ovaia proper to that of iroioi/ (cf. Athan. p. 478 s^. ; he uses oi/aia freely in the secondary sense for non-
theological purposes in contra Gentes, where it is often best rendered ' nature '). Aristotle accordingly uses ovcrU
freely to designate what we call substances, whether simple or compoimd, such as iron, gold, earth, the heavens,
T^ ttKivriToi', &c., &c. Corresponding again, to the logical distinction of yei/os and dSos is the metaphysical
distinction (not exactly of matter and form, but) of matter simply, regarded as rb v-roKein.4vov, and matter regarded
as existing in this or that form, rh iroiov rh iv rrj uvaitf, rb ri tjv that, the meeting-point of logic and metaphysics
in Aristotle's system. Agreeably to this distinction, ovaia is used sometimes of the latter^he concrete thing
regarded in its essential nature, sometimes of the former r) vwoKeifievn ovaia iis vAjj, OAtj being in fact the summum
genus of the material world.
Now the use of the word in Christian theology had exemplified nearly every one of the above senses. In the
quasi-material sense ofioovawv had been used in the school of Valentinian to express the homogeneity of the tv/o
factors in the fundamental dualism of the Universe of intelligent beings. In a somewhat similar sense it is used in
the Clementine Homilies xx. 7. The Platonic phrase for the Divine Nature, eTTiKeiva ttocttjs ouo-ias, adopted by
Origen and by Athanasius contra Gentes, appears to retain something of the idea of ovaia as implying material
existence ; and this train of associations had to be expressly disclaimed in defending the Nicene formula. In the
sense of homogeneity the word bfxoovaiof is expressly applied by Origen, as we have seen, to the Father and^ the
Son : on the other hand, taking ovaia in the 'primary' Aristotelian sense, he has eVepos kot' ovaiav wot viroKitfievov.
In the West (see above on Tertullian and Novatian) the Latin substantia (Cicero had in vain attempted to give
currency to the less euphonious but more svatsXAe essentia) had taken its place in the phrase unius siibstaittia or com -
munio substantia:, intended to denote not only the homogeneity but the Unity of Father and Son. Accordingly
we find Dionysius of Rome pressing the test upon his namesake of Alexandria and the latter not declimng
it (below, p. 183). But a few years later we find the Origenist bishops, who with the concurrence of
Dionysius of Rome deposed Paul of Samosata, expressly repudiating the term. This fact, which is as certain
as any fact in Church history (see Routh Hell. iii. 364 &c., Caspari Alte u. Neue. Q., pp. 161 sg^.), was a powerful
support to the Arians in their subsequent endeavours to unite the conservative East in reaction against the
■council. Scholars are fairly equally divided as to the explanation of the fact. Some hold, following Athanasius
163—165, Gwatkin, Studies, p. 42, sj^. ; Newman's Arians*.
pp. 185 to 193, and his notes and excursus embodied in this
volume, especially that appended to Epist. Eiiseb. p. 77 ; Zahn's
Marcellus, pp. 11—27 (also p. 87), perhaps the best modern dis-
cussion ; Harnack ii. pp. 228 — 230, and note 3 ; Loofs §§ 32 — 34 ;
Shedd i. 362—372 ; and the Introduction to the Tomus axiA ad
Afros in this volume pp. 482, 4SS. The use of ovaia. in Aristotle is
tabulated by Bonitz in the fifth volume (index) to the Berlin
edition : its use in Plato is less frequent and less technical, but
see the brief account in Liddell and Scott.
xxxu
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 3 (2).
and Basil, that Paul imputed the duoovcrtoi' (in a materialising sense) to his opponents, as a consequence of
negaverunt?') If so, it must have been meant to deny the existence of the Logos as an ovala (i.e. Hypostasis)
distinct from the Father. Unfortunately we have not the original documents to refer to. But in either case the
word was repudiated at Antioch in one sense, enacted at Nicaea in another. The fact however remains that the
term does not exclude ambiguity. Athanasius is therefore going beyond strict accuracy when he claims
(p. 164) that no one who is not an Arian can fail to be in agreement with the Synod. Marcellus and Photinus
alone prove the contrary. But hs is right in regarding the word as rigidly excluding the heresy of Arius.
This brings us to the question in what sense oi/aia is used in the Nicene definition. We must remember the
strong Western and anti-Origenist influence which prevailed in the council (above, p. xvii.), and the use of
vir6<Traats and ouffla as convertible terms in the anathematism (see Excursus A, pp. 77, sgq. below). Now going
back for a moment to the correspondence of the two Dionysii, we see that Dionysius of Rome had contended not
so much against the subordijiation of the Son to the Father as against their undue separation (ixfiJLfpi(Tfj.fyai
unoa-Tarreis). In Other words he had pressed the iuoovaiuv upon his namesake in the interest rather of the unity
than of the equality of the Persons in the Holy Trinity. At Nicaea, the problem was (as shewn above) to explain
(at least negatively) how the Church understood the Generation of the Sori. Accordingly we find Athanasius in
later years explaining that the Council meant to place beyond doubt the Essential Relation of the Divine Persons
to one another (rb XSiov ttjs ovaias, toutottjj, see de Deer. pp. 161, 163 sq., 165, 168, 319 ; of course including
identity of Nature, pp. 396, 413, 232), and maintaining to the end (where he expresses his own view, p. 490, &c.)
the convertibility oiohaix and uTrdcrraffis for this purpose. By the word b Beds or 6e6i he understands ovSev erepof
fl TT)v oixrlav toC ovrns [dc Deer. 22). The conclusion is that in their original sense the definitions of Nicaea assert not
merely the specific identity of the Son with the Father (as Peter qua man is of one oixrio with Paul, or the
Emperor's statue of one form with the Emperor himself, p. 396), but the full unbroken continuation of the Being
of the Father in the Son, the inseparable unity of the Son with the Father in the Oneness of the Godhead. Here
the phrase is 'balanced ' by the Ik t^j [biTroTToo-eoij ^] ohaia^ rov Uarphs, not as though merely one oixria had
given existence to another, but in the sense that with such origination the oiio-io remained the same. This is a ' first
approximation to the mysterious doctrine of the ireptx^prjiTis,' coinherence, or ' circuminsessio,' which is necessary
to guard the doctrine of the Trinity against tritheism, but which, it must be observed, lifts it out of the reach of
the categories of any system of thought in which the workings of human intelligence have ever been able to
organise themselves. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity vindicated by the Nicene formula on the one hand remains,
after the exclusion of others, as the one direction in which the Christian intellect can travel without frustrating
and limiting the movement of faith, without bringing to a halt the instinct of faith in Christ as Saviour, implanted
in the Church by the teaching of S. Paul and of S. John, of the Lord Himself: on the other hand it is not a full
solution of the intellectual difficulties with which the analysis of that faith and those instincts brings us face to face.
That God is One, and that the Son is God, are truths of revelation which the category of ' substance ' fails to
synthesise. The Nicene Definition furnishes a basis of agreement for the purpose of Christian devotion, worship,
and life, but leaves two theologies face to face, with mutual recognition as the condition of the healthy life of
either. The theology of Athanasius and of the West is that of the Nicene formula in its original sense. The
inseparable Unity of the God of Revelation is its pivot. The conception of personality in the Godhead is its
difficulty. The distinctness of the Father, Son, and Spirit is felt (i\Aos t> narrip &\\oi 6 vlos), but cannot be
formulated so as to satisfy our full idea of personality. For this Athanasius had no word ; -Kphaoiitov meant too
little (implying as it did no more than an aspect possibly worn but for a special period or purpose), vnoffTaais
(implying such personality as separates Peter from Paul) too much. But he recognised the admissibility of the
sense in which the Nicene formula eventually, in the theology of the Cappadocian fathers, won its way to supre
macy in the East. To them vir6ara(ni was an appropriate term to express the distinction of Persons in the God-
head, while oixria expressed the divine Nature which they possessed in common (see Excursus A. p. 77 sqq.).
This sense of ohaia approximated to that of species, or eI5os (Aristotle's 'secondary' ovaia), while that of
yff(J(rTOfrij gravitated toward that of personality in the empirical sense. But in neither case did the approximation
amount to complete identity. The idea of trine personality was limited by the consideration of the Unity ; the
■irepixiipv<^^s was recognised, although in a somewhat different form, the prominent idea in Athanasius being that
of coinherence or immanence, whereas the Cappadocians, while using, of course, the language of John xiv. II, yet
prefer the metaphor of successive dependence watrep e£ aKuirtw (Bas. Ep. 38, p. iiS D). To Athanasius, tlie
Godhead is complete not in the Father alone, still less in the Three Persons assarts of the one oixria, but in each
Person as much as in all. The Cappadocian Fathers go back to the Origenist view that the Godhead is complete
primarily in the Father alone, but mediately in the Son or Spirit, by virtue of their origination from the Father as
TTTj-yT] or alria rf/s OfdrTiTos. To Athanasius the distinct Personality of Son and Spirit was the difficulty ; his
difference from Origen was wide, from Marcellus subtle. To the Cappadocians the difficulty was the Unity of the
Persons ; to Marcellus they were toto ccelo opposed, they are the pupils of Origen *. Accordingly when Basil
makes a distinction between ovaia and iiiroaraau in the Nicene anathematism, he is giving not historical exegesis
but his own opinion.
The Nicene definition in this sense emphasized the Unity of the Godhead in Three Persons, against
the Arian division of the Son from the Father. How then did it escape the danger of lending countenance
to Monarchiansm ? Athanasius feels the difficulty without solving it, for the distinction given by him, p. 84,
between iuoouo-ioj and ^oj/oouo-joj is without real meaning (w^ say with TertuUian ' of <>«* substance '). On the
whole in mature years he held that the title ' Son ' was sufficient to secure the Trinity of Persons. ' By the name
Father we confute Arius, by the name of Son we overthrow Sabellius ' (p. 434 ; cf. p. 413) ; and we find that the
council in its revision of the Caesarean creed shifted vl6s to the principal position where it took the place of Ad^or.
Beyond this the Creed imposed no additional test in that direction (the e»c t^s ohalas is important but not
» Gregory Thaumaturgus was the great Origenist influence
in northern Asia Minor : the Cappadocian fathers were also
influenced in the direction of the ohoov(Ti.ov by Apollinarius : see
the correspondence between Basil and the latter, Bas. Epp. 8,
9, edited by Draseke in Ztschr.fUr K. G. viii. 85 sgq. Apollinarius
was of course equally opposed to Arianism and to Origen : see
also p. 449 sq.
THE HOMOUSION: ITS JUSTIFICATION.
XXXlll
decisive in this respect). This was felt as an objection to the Creed, and the objection was pointed by
the influence of Marcellus at the council. The historical position of Marcellus is in fact, as we shall see, the
principal key to the 'conservative' reaction which followed. The insertion into the conservative creeds
of a clause asserting the endlessness of Christ's Kingdom, which eventually received ecumenical authority,
was an expression of this feeling. But a final explanation between the Nicene doctrine and Monarchianism
could not come about until the idea of Personality had been tested in the light of the appearance of the Son in
the Flesh. The solution, or rather definition, of the problem is to be sought in the history of the Christological
questions which began with Apollinarius of Laodicea.
The above account of the anti-Arian test formulated at Nicsea will suffice to explain the motives for its
adoption, the difficulties which made that adoption reluctant, and the fact of the reaction which followed. One
thing is clear, namely that given the actual conditions, nothing short of the test adopted would have availed to
exclude the Arian doctrine. It is also I think clear, that not only was the current theology of the Eastern Church
unable to cope with Arianism, but that it was itself a danger to the Church and in need of the corrective check
•of the Nicene definition. Hellenic as was the system of Origen, it was in its spirit Christian, and saturated with
the influence of Scripture. It could never have taken its place as the expression of the whole mind of the Church ;
but it remains as the noblest monument of a Christian intellect resolutely in love with truth for its own sake, and
bent upon claiming for Christ the whole range of the legitimate activity of the human spirit. But the age had
inherited only the wreck of Origenism, and its partial victory in the Church had brought confusion in its train,
the leaders of the Church were characterised by secular knowledge rather than grasp of first principles, by dogmatic
intellectualism rather than central apprehension of God in Christ. Eusebius of Csesarea is their typical repre-
sentative. The Nicene definition and the work of .-^thanasius which followed were a summons l)ack to the simple
first principles of the Gospel and the Rule of Faith. What then is their value to ourselves ? Above all, this, that
they have preserved to us what Arianism would have destroyed, that assurance of Knowledge of, and Reconciliation
to, God in Christ of which the divinity of the Saviour is tlie indispensable condition ; if we are now Christians
in the sense of .S. Paul we owe it under God to the work of the great synod. Not that the synod explained all ;
or did more than effectually ' block off false forms of thought or avenues of unbalanced inference ' which ' chal-
lenged the acceptance of Christian people.' The decisions of councils are 'primarily not the Church saying
"yes " to fresh traths or developments or forms of consciousness ; but rather saying " no " to untrue and misleading
modes of shaping and stating her truth,' [Lux Mundi, ed. i. p. 240, cf. p. 334). It is objected that the Nicene
Formula, especially as understood by Athanasius, is itself a 'false form of thought,' a flat contradiction in terms.
That the latter is true we do not dispute (see Newman's notes infra, p. 336, note I, &c.). But before pro-
nouncing the form of thought for that reason a false one, we must consider what the ' terms ' are, and to what
they are applied. To myself it appears that a religion which brought the divine existence into the compass of the
categories of any philosophy would by that very fact forfeit its claim to the character of revelation. The categories
of human thought are the outcome of organised experience of a sensible world, and beyond the limits of that world
they fail us. This is true quite apart from revelation. The ideas of essence and substance, personality and will,
separateness and continuity, cause and effect, unity and plurality, are all in different degrees helps which the mind
uses in order to arrange its knowledge, and valid within the range of experience, but which become a danger when
invested with absolute validity as things in themselves. Even the mathematician reaches real results by operating
with terms which contain a perfect contradiction (e.g. ,s/— i, and to some extent the 'calculus of operations').
The idea of Will in man, of Personality in God, present difficulties which reason cannot reconcile.
The revelation of Christ is addressed primarily to the will not to the intellect, its appeal is to Faith not to
Theology. Theology is the endeavour of the Christian intellect to frame for itself conceptions of matters belonging
to the immediate consequences of our faith, matters about which we must believe something, but as to which the
Lord and His Apostles have delivered nothing formally explicit. Theology has no doubt its certainties beyond
the express teaching of our Lord and the New Testament writers ; but its work is subject to more than the usual
limitations of human thought : we deal with things outside the range of experience, with celestial things ; but ' we
have no celestial language.' To abandon all theology would be to acquiesce in a dumb faith : we are to teach, to
explain, to defend ; the K6-yos aocpias and Aoyos yvdaews have from the first been gifts of the Spirit for the building
up of the Body. But we know in part and prophesy in part, and our terms begin to fail us just in the region where
the problem of guarding the faith of the simple ends and the inevitable metaphysic, into which all pure reflexion
merges, begins. Eire oOu (pi\uffo<p7]T4ov elfre fji)) <\)i\oaopr]T4ov, (pi\ocro(p7)Tioi', 'man is metaphysical nolens volens:'
only let us recollect tliat when we find ourselves in the region of antinomies we are crossing the frontier line
between revelation and speculation, between the domain of theology and that of ontology. That this Ime is
approached in the definition of the great council no one will deny. But it was reached by the council and by the
subsequent consent of the Church reluctantly and under compulsion. The bold assumption that we can argue from
the revelation of God in Christ to mysteries beyond our experience was made by the Gnostics, by Arius : the
Church met them by a denial of what struck at the root of her belief, not by the claim to erect formulae applied
merely for the lack of better into a revealed ontology. In the terms Person, Hypostasis, Will, Essence, Nature,
Generation, Procession, we have the embodiment of ideas extracted from experience, and, as applied to God,
representing merely the best attempt we can make to explain what we mean when we speak of God as Father and
of Christ as His Son. Even these last sacred names convey their full meaning to us only in view of the historical
person of Christ and of our relation to God through Him. That this meaning is based upon an absolute relation
of Christ to the Father is the rock of our faith. That relation is mirrored in the name Son of God : but what it is
in itself, when the empirical connotations of Sonship are stripped away, we cannot possibly know. '0/xoov<tios t^
Tlarpl, 6/c Tf)s oixrias tov TlaTp6i- these words assert at once our faith that such relation exists and our ignorance
of its nature. To the simplicity of faith it is enough to know (and this knowledge is what our formula secures)
that in Christ we have not only the perfect Example of Human Love to God, but the direct expression and
assurance of the Father's Love to us.
(c) Materials for Reaction.
' The victory of Nicsea was rather a surprise than a solid conquest.
VOL. IV. C
As it was not the
XXXIV
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 3(2).
spontaneous and deliberate purpose of the bishops present, but a revolution which a minority
had forced through by sheer strength of clearer Christian thought, a reaction was inevitable as
soon as the half-convinced conservatives returned home ' (Gwatkin). The reaction, however,
was not for a long time overtly doctrinal. The defeat, the moral humiliation of Arianism at
the council was too signal, the prestige of the council itself too overpowering, the Emperor too
resolute in supporting its definition, to permit of this. Not till after the death of Cohstantine
in 337 does the policy become manifest of raising alternative symbols to a coordinate rank with
that of Nicaea ; not till six years after the establishment of Constantius as sole Emperor, — i.e.
not till 357, — did Arianism once again set its mouth to the trumpet. During the reign of
Constantine the reaction, though doctrinal in its motive, was personal in its ostensible grounds.
The leaders of the victorious minority at Nicasa are one by one attacked on this or that
pretence and removed from their Sees, till at the time of Constantine's death the East
is in the hands of their opponents. What were the forces at work which made this possible ?
(i) Persecuted Asians. Foremost of all, the harsh measures adopted by Constantine with at least the tacit
approval of the Nicene leaders furnished material for reaction. Arius and his principal friends were sent into exile,
and as we have seen they went in bitterness of spirit. Arius himself was banished to Illyricum, and would seem to
have remained there five or six years. (The chronology of his recall is obscure, but see D.C.B. ii. 364, and
Gwatkin, p. 86, note 2). It would be antecedently very unlikely that a religious exile would spare exertions to
gain sympathy for himself and converts to his opinions. As a matter of fact, Arianism had no more active sup-
porters during the next half-century than two bishops of the neighbouring province of Pannonia, Valens of Mursa
(Mitrowitz), and Ursacius' of Singidunum (Belgrade). Valens and Ursacius are described as pupils of Arius,
and there is eveiy reason to trace their personal relations with the heresiarch to his Illyrian exile. The seeds sown
in Illyria at this time were still bearing fruit nearly 50 years later (pp. 489, 494, note). Secundus nursed his
bitterness fully thirty years (p. 294; cf. 456). Theognis grasped at revenge at_ Tyre in 335 (pp. 104, 1 14).
Eusebius of Nicomedia, recalled from exile with his friend and neighbour Theognis, not long after the election
of Athanasius in 328, was ready to move heaven and earth to efface the results of the council. The harsh
measures against the Arians then, if insufficient to account for the reaction, at any rate furnished it with the energy
of personal bitterness and sense of wrong.
(2) The Eusebians and the Court. Until the council of Sardica (i.e. a short time after the death of Eusebius
of Nicomedia), the motive power of the reaction proceeded from the environment of Eusebius, oi irfpi Evtri^iov,
It should be observed once for all that the term ' Eusebians ' is the later and inexact equivalent of the last
named Greek phrase, which (excepting perhaps p. 436) has reference to Eusebius of Nicomedia only, and
not to his namesake of Caesarea. The latter, no doubt, lent his support to the action of the party, but
ought not to suffer in our estimation from the misfortune of his name. Again, the 'Eusebians' are not
a heresy, nor a theological party or school ; they are the * ring,' or personal entourage, of one man, a master
of intrigue, who succeeded in combining a very large number of men of very difr'erent opinions in more or
less close association for common ecclesiastical action. The 'Eusebians' sensu latiori are the majority of
Asiatic bishops who were in reaction against the council and its leaders ; in the stricter sense the term
denotes the pure Arians like Eusebius, Theognis, and the rest, and those ' political Arians ' who without settled
adherence to Avian prmciples, were, for all practical purposes, hand in glove with Eusebius and his fellows.
To the former class emphatically belong Valens and Ursacius, whose recantation in 347 is the solitary and insuffi-
cient foundation for the sweejjing generalisation of Socrates (ii. 37), that they 'always inclined to the party in
power,' and George, the presbyter of Alexandria, afterwards bishop of the Syrian Laodicea, who, although he
went through a phase of 'conservatism,' 357 — 359, began and ended (Gwatkin, pp. 181 — 183) as an Arian, pure
and simple. Among ' political Arians ' of this period Eusebius of Csesarea is the chief. He was not, as we have
said above, an Arian theologically, yet whatever allowances may be made for his conduct during this period
(D.C.B., ii.'3i5, 316) it tended all in one direction. But on the whole, political Arianism is more abundantly
exemplified in the Homoeans of the next generation, whose activity begins about the time of the death of Constans.
The Eusebians proper were political indeed eT nva kuI &\\oi, but their essential Arianism is the one element of
principle about them *. Above all, the employment of the term ' SEMI-Arians ' as a synonym for Eusebians, or
inde= 1 as a designation of any party at this period, is to be strongly deprecated. It is the (possibly somewhat mis-
leadiii ;, but reasonable and accepted) term for the younger generation of convinced ' conservatives,' whom we find
in th; sixth decade of the century becoming conscious of their essential difference in principle from the Arians,
whether political or pure, and feeling their way toward fusion with the Nicenes. These are a definite party, with a
definite theological position, to which nothing in the earlier period exactly corresponds. The Eusebians proper were
not semi-, but real Arians. Eusebius of Ccssarea and the Asiatic conservatives are i\\e predecessors oi the semi-
A' lans, but their position is not quite the same. Reserving them for a moment, we must complete our account of the
Eusebians proper. Their nucleus consisted of the able and influential circle of ' Lucianists ; ' it has been remarked
by an unprejudiced obseiver that, so far as we know, not one of them was eminent as a religious character
(Harnack, ii. 185) ; their strength was in fixity of policy and in ecclesiastical intrigue ; and their battery was the
imperial court. Within three years of the Council, Constantine had begun to waver, not in his resolution to
maintain the Nicene Creed, that he never relaxed, but in his sternness toward its known opponents. His policy
was dictated by the desire for unity : he was made to feel the lurking dissatisfaction of the bishops of Asia, perhaps
as his anger was softened by time he missed the ability and ready counsel of the extruded bishop of his residential
city. An Arian presbyter (' Eustathius ' or ' Eutokius ' ?), who was a kind of chaplain to Constantia, sister of Con-
stantine and widow of Licinius, is said to have kept the subject before the Emperor's mind after her death (in 328,
see Socr. i. 25). At last, as we have seen, first Eusebius and Theognis were recalled, then Arius himself was
pardoned upon his general assurance of agreement with the faith of the Synod.
* They were probably not yet bishops at this time, as they
were ^<7a«jf bishops at Tyre in 335 ; evidently they are 'the fairest
of God's youthful flock' (!) alluded to in Eus. V.C. iv. 43.
' At ihe same time Arius himself and all his fellow Lucianists
(unlike the obscure Secundus and Theonas, and the later gener-
ation of Eunomians) are open to the charge of subserviency at
a pinch.
MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA. xxxv
The atmosphere of a court is seldom favourable to a high standard of moral or religious principle ; and the
place-hunters and hangers-on of the imperial courts of these days were an exceptionally worthless crew (see
Gwatkin, p. 60, no, 234). It is a tribute to the Nicene cause that their influence was steadily on the other side,
and to the character of Constantine that he was able throughout the greater part of the period to resist it, at any
rate as far as Athanasius was concerned. But on the whole the court was the centre whence the webs of Eusebian
intrigue extended to Egypt, Antioch, and many other obscurer centres of attack.
The influences outside the Church were less directly operative in the campaign, but such as they were they
served the Eusebian plans. The expulsion of a powerful bishop from the midst of a loyal flock was greatly
assisted by the co-operation of a friendly mob ; and Jews (pp. 94, 296), and heathen alike were willing to
aid the Arian cause. The army, the civil service, education, the life of society were still largely heathen ; the
inevitable influx of heathen into the Church, now that the empire had become Christian, brought with it multitudes
to whom Arianism was a more intelligible creed than that of Nicsea ; the influence of the philosophers was a serious
factor, they might well welcome Arianism as a ' Selbstersetzung des Christentums.' This is not inconsistent with
the instances of persecution of heathenism by Arian bishops, and of savage heathen reprisals, associated with the
names of George of Alexandria, Patrophilus, Mark of Arethusa, and others. (For a fuller discussion, with references,
see Gwatkin, pp. 53—59.)
(3,) The Ecclesiastical Conservatives, Something has already been said in more than one
connection to explain how it came to pass that the very provinces whose bishops made up the
large numerical majority at Nicaea, also furnished the numbers which swelled the ranks of the
Eusebians at Tyre, Antioch, and Philippopolis. The actual men were, of course, in many
cases 3 changed in the course of years, but the sees were the same, and there is ample evidence
that the staunch Nicene party were in a hopeless minority in Asia Minor * and but httle stronger
in Syria. The indefiniteness of this mass of episcopal opinion justifies the title 'Conservative.'
In adopting it freely, we must not forget, what the whole foregoing account has gone to shew,
that their conservatism was of the empirical or short-sighted kind, prone to acquiesce in things
as they are, hard to arouse to a sense of a great crisis, reluctant to step out of its groove. If
by conservatism we mean action which really tends to preserve the vital strength of an institu-
tion, then Athanasius and the leaders of Nicsea were the only conservatives. But it is not an
unknown thing for vulgar conservatism to take alarm at the clear grasp of principles and facts
which alone can carry the State over a great crisis, and by wrapping itself up in its prejudices
to play into the hands of anarchy. Common men do not easily rise to the level of mighty
issues. Where Demosthenes saw the crisis of his nation's destiny, u3Eschines saw materials for
a personal impeachment of his rival. In the anti-Nicene reaction the want of clearness of
thought coincided with the fatal readiness to magnify personal issues. Here was the oppor-
tunity of the Arian leaders : a confused succession of personal skirmishes, in which the mass
of men saw no religious principle, nor any combined purpose (Soc. i. 13, wKTOfiaxias re
ovbev diTt'ixe tu yivofieva}, was Conducted from headquarters with a fixed steady aim. But their
machinations would have been fruitless had the mass of the bishops been really in sympathy
with the council to which they were still by their own action committed. ' Arian hatred of the
council would have been powerless if it had not rested on a formidable mass of conservative
discontent : while the conservative discontent might have died away if the court had not sup-
plied it with the means of action ' (Gwatkin, p. 61. He explains the policy of the court by the
religious sympathies of Asia Minors and its political importance, pp. 90-91.) But the authority
of the council remained unchallenged during the lifetime of Constantine, and no Arian raised
his voice against it. One doctrinal controversy there was, of subordinate importance, but of
a kind to rivet the conservatives to their attitude of sullen reaction.
It follows from what has been said of the influence of Origen in moulding the current theology of the Eastern
Church, that the one theological principle which was most vividly and generally grasped was the horror of
Monarchian and especially of ' Sabellian ' teaching. Now in replying to Asterius the spokesman of early Arianism,
no less a person than Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra (Angora) in Galatia, and one of the principal leaders of
Nicsea, had laid himself open to this charge. It was brought with zeal and learning (in 336) in two successive works
by Eusebius of Caesarea, which, with Ath., Orat. iv. are our principal source of information as to the tenets of Mar-
cellus (see D.C.B. ii. 341, sq., Zahn Marcellus 99 sqq., fragments collected by Rettberg Marcelliana). On the other
hand he was uniformly supported by the Nicene party, and especially by Athanasius and the Roman Church.
His book was examined at Sardica, and on somewhat ex parte grounds (p. 125) pronounced innocent : a personal
estrangement from Athanasius shortly after (Hilar. Fragm. ii. 21, 23) on account of certain ' ambiguse prsedi-
cationes eius, in quam Photinus erupit, doctrinas,' did not amount to a formal breach of communion (he is mentioned
14 years later as an exiled Nicene bishop, pp. 256, 271), nor did the anxious questioning of Epiphanius (see
Hcer. 72. 4) succeed in extracting from the then aged Athanasius more than a significant smile. He refuses
to condemn him, and in arguing against opinions which appear to be his, he refrains from mentioning the name
3 Alexander of Thessalonica had been at Nicaea, Dianius
of Caes. Capp. had not. The two are typical of the better sort of
conservatives.
4 For Asia besides Marcellus we have only Diodorus of Tene-
dos, not at Nicaea, but expelled soon after 330, p. 271 ; signs at
Sardica, p. 147, banished again p. 276, not in D.C.B. ; for Syria
the names p. 271, cf- p. 256.
5 Always an important factor in the stability of the Byzantine
throne, see, on Justinian, D.C.B. iii. 545a, suhfin. Newman,
Arians, Appendix v., brings no conclusive proof of strong Nicene
feeling among the masses of the laity in this region. But ' the
people' in Galatia, according to Basil, remained devoted to
Marcellus.
C 2
XXXVl
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 4-
even of Photinus*. It may be well therefore to sketch in a few touches what we know of the system of Mar-
cellus, in order that we may appreciate the relative right of Eusebius in attacking, and of Athanasius and the
Romans in supporting him. Marcellus is a representative of the traditional theology of Asia Minor, as we find it
in Ignatius and Iren?eus (see above, pp. xxii. — xxiv., \x-vi.Jin.), and is independent of any influence of, or rather in
conscious reaction against, Origenism. "We cannot prove that he had studied either Ignatius or Irenaeus, but we
find the doctrine of avaK€(f>a\aiw(ns with reference to Creation and the Incarnation, and the Ignatian thought
of the Divine Silence, and a general unmistakeable affinity (cf. Zahn 236 — 244). Marcellus ' appeals from Origen
to S. John.' He begins with the idea of Sonship, as Arius and the Nicene Council had done. Perceiving that on
the one hand Arians and Origenists alike were led by the idea of Sonship as dependent on paternal will to infer the
inferiority of the Son to the Father, and in the more extreme case to deny His coeternity, feeling on the other
hand (with Irenaeus II. xxviii. 6) our inability to find an idea to correspond with the relation implied in the
eternal Sonship, he turns to the first chapter of S. John as the classic passage for the pre-existent nature of Christ.
He finds that de/ore the Incarnation the Saviour is spoken of as Logos only-, accordingly all other designations,
even that of Son, must be reserved for the Incarnate. Moreover (Joh. i. i) the Word is strictly coeternal,
and no name implying an act (such as ■yivvr)(Ti$) can express the relation of the Word to God. But in view of the
Divine Purpose of Creation and Redemption (for the latter is involved in the former by the doctrine of h.vaKi<^a.Ka.iu)-
ais) there is a process, a stirring within the divine Monad. The Word which is potentially {^wap-n) eternally
latent in God proceeds forth in Actuality {kvipyi'm), yet without ceasing to be potentially in God as well. In this
€VfpyiLa SpaaTiK-fi, to which the word yivvncns may be applied, begins the great drama of the Universe which rises
to the height of the Incarnation, and which, after the Economy is completed, and fallen man restored (and more
than restored) to the Sonship of God which he had lost, ends in the return of the Logos to the Father, the
handing over of His Kingdom by the Son, that God may be all in all.
What strikes one throughout the scheme is the intense difficulty caused to Marcellus by the unsolved problem
which underlies the whole theology of the Nicene leaders, the problem oi personality. The Manhood of Christ
was to Marcellus /«r se non-personal. The seat of its personality was the indwelling Logos. But in what sense
was the Logos itself personal ? Here Marcellus loses his footing : in what sense can any idea of personality attach
to a merely potential existence ? Again, if it was only in the ivipyeia SpaoTiKv that the personality of the Word
was realised, and this only reached its fulness in the Incarnation of Christ, was the transition difficult to the plain
assertion that the personality of the Son, or of the Word, originated with the Incarnation ? But if this were not
so, and if the Person of the Word was to recede at the consummation of all things into the Unity of the Godhead,
what was to become of the Nature He had assumed ? That it too could merge into a potential existence within the
Godhead was of course impossible ; v/hat then was its destiny ? The answer of Marcellus was simple : he did not
know (Zahn, 179) ; for Scripture taught nothing beyond I Cor. xv. 28.
We now perceive the subtle difference between Marcellus and Athanasius. Neither of them could formulate
the idea of Personality in the Holy Trinity. But Athanasius, apparently on the basis of a more thorough intelli-
gence of Scripture (for Marcellus, though a devout, was a partial and somewhat ignorant biblical theologian), felt
what Marcellus did not, the steady inherent personal distinctness of the Father and the Son. Accordingly, while
Athanasius laid down and adhered to the doctrine of eternal yewrtms, Marcellus involved himself in the mystical
and confused idea of a divine TrKarvafxhs and (Tu<no\i\. Moreover, while Athanasius was clearsighted in his
apprehension of the problem of the day, Marcellus was after all merely conservative : he went behind the con-
servatism of the Origenists, — behind even that of the West, where Tertullian had left a sharper sense of personal
distinction in the Godhead, — to an archaic conservatism akin to the ' naive modalism ' of the early Church ; upon
this he engrafted reflexion, in part that of the old Asiatic theology, in part his own. As the result, his faith was
such as Athanasius could not but recognise as sincere ; but in his attempt to give it theological expression he split
upon the rocks of Personality, of Eschatology, of the divine immutability. His theology was an honest and
interesting but mistaken attempt to grapple with a problem before he understood another which lay at its base.
In doing so he exposed himself justly to attack ; but we may with Athanasius, while acknowledging this, retain
a kindly sympathy for this veteran ally of many confessors and sturdy opponent of the alliance between science and
theology.
The feeling against Marcellus might have been less strong, at any rate it would have had less show of reason,
but for the fact that he was the teacher of Photinus. This person became bishop of Sirmium between 330
and 340, gave great offence by his teaching, and was deposed by the Arian party ineffectually in 347, finally in
351. After his expulsion he occupied himself with writing books in Greek and in Latin, including a work ' against
all heresies,' in which he expounded his own (Socr. ii. 30). None of his works have survived, and our information
is very scanty (Zahn, Marc. 189 — 196 is the best account), but he seems to have solved the central difficulty of
Marcellus by placing the seat of the Personality of Christ in His Human Soul. How much of the system of his
master he retained is uncertain, but the result was in substance pure Unitarianism. It is instructive to observe
that even Photinus was passively supported for a time by the Nicenes. He was apparently (Hil. Fr. ii. 19, sqq.)
condemned at a council at Milan in 345, but not at Rome till 380. Athanasius (pp. 444 — 447) abstains from
mentioning his name although he refutes his opinions ; once only he mentions him as a heretic, and with apparent
reluctance {c. Apoll. ii. 19, -rov Xiyofx^vov iaiTeiuov). The first ? condemnation of him on the Nicene side in the
East is by Paulinus of Antioch in 362 (p. 486). On the other hand the Eusebians eagerly caught at so
irresistible a weapon. Again and again they hurled anathemas at Photinus, at first simply identifying him
with Marcellus, but afterwards with full appreciation of his position. And even to the last the new Nicene party
in Asia were aggrieved at the refusal of the old Nicenes at Alexandria and Rome to anathematise the master of
such a heretic. Photinus was the scandal of Marcellus, Marcellus of the Council of Nicsea.
§ 4. Early years of his Episcopate. The Anti-Nicene reaction^ 328 — 335.
Athanasius was elected bishop by general consent. Alexander, as we have seen, had
practically nominated him, and a large body of popular opinion clamoured for his election,
6 At the same time he adopts a certain reserve in speaking of 7 But he is condemned by name in the alleged Coptic Acts of
Marcellus, and his name is absent from the roll of the orthodox, the Council of 362; moreover Eustathius appears to have written
P- 227. against him, see Cowper, Syr. Misc. 60.
BEGINNING OF EPISCOPATE OF ATHANASIUS.
xxxvn
as "the good, the pious, a Christian, one of the ascetics, a genuine bishop." The actual
election appears (p. 103) to have rested with the bishops of Egypt and Libya, who testify
ten years later (ib.) that the majority ^ of their body elected him.
The see to which he succeeded was the second in Christendom ; it had long enjoyed direct
jurisdiction over the bishops of all Egypt and Libya (p. 178, Socr. i. 9), the bishops of
Alexandria enjoyed the position and power of secular potentates, although in a less degree than
those of Rome, or of Alexandria itself in later times (Socr. vii. 11, cf. 7). The bishop had
command of large funds, which, however, were fully claimed for church purposes and alms
(see p. 105). In particular, the 'pope' of Alexandria had practically in his hands the
appointment to the sees in his province : accordingly, as years go on, we find Arianism disap-
pear entirely from the Egyptian episcopate. The bishop of Alexandria, like many other
influential bishops in antiquity, was commonly spoken of as Papa or Pope ; he also was known
as the 'ApxteTTiWoTToy, as we learn from a contemporary inscription (see p. 564, note 2).
The earhest biographer of Athanasius (see Introduction to Hist. Aceph. p. 495, 496, below)
divides the episcopate of Athanasius into periods of ' quiet ' and of exile, marking the periods
of each according to what appears to be the reckoning officially preserved in the episcopal
archives. His first period of 'quiet' lasts from June 8, 328, to July 11, 335 (departure for
Tyre), a period of seven years, one month and three days ; it is thus the third longest period
of undisturbed occupancy of his see, the next being the last from his final restoration under
Valens till his death (seven years and three months), and the longest of all being the golden
decade (346 -356, really nine years and a quarter) preceding the Third Exile.
Of the internal events of this first septennium of quiet we know little that is definite.
At the end of it, however, we find him supported by the solid body of the Egyptian episcopate:
and at the beginning one of his first steps (autumn of 329) was to make a visitation of the
province 'to strengthen the churches of God' {^Vit. Pack., cf also Epiph. Hcer. 68. 6). We
learn from the life of Pachomius (on which see below, p. 189), that he penetrated as far
as Syene on the Ethiopian frontier, and, as he passed Tabenne, was welcomed by Pachomius
and his monks with great rejoicings. At the request of Saprion, bishop of Tentyra, in whose
diocese the island was, he appears to have ordained Pachomius to the presbyterate, thus con-
stituting his community a self-contained body (Acta SS, Mai. iii. 30, Appx.). The supposed
consecration of Frumentius at this time must be reserved, in accordance with preponderating
evidence, for § 7.
Meanwhile, the anti-Nicene reaction was being skilfully fostered by the strategy of Eusebius
of Nicomedia. Within a year of the election of Athanasius we find him restored to imperial
favour, and at once the assault upon the Nicene strongholds begins. The controversy between
Marcellus and Eusebius of Caesarea (supra, p. xxxv.), appears to have begun later, but the
latter was already, in conjunction with his friend Paulinus of Tyre and with Patrophilus,
at theological war with Eustathius of Antioch. A synod of Arian and reactionary bishops
assembled at Antioch, and deposed the latter on the two charges (equally de rlgueur in
such cases) of Sabellianism and immorality. Backed by a complaint (possibly founded
on fact) that he had indiscreetly repeated a current tale (p. 271, n. 2) concerning Helena,
the Emperor's mother, the sentence of the council had the full support of the civil arm,
and Eustathius lost his see for ever. Although he lived till about 358, no council ven-
tured to 'restore' him (discussed by Gwatkin, pp. 73, 74, note), but the Christian public of
Antioch violently resented his extrusion, and a compact body of the Church-people steadily
refused to recognise any other bishop during, and even after, his lifetime (infr. p. 481).
Asclepas of Gaza was next disposed of, then Eutropius of Hadrianople, and many others
(names, p. 271). Meanwhile everything was done to foment disturbance in Egypt. The
Meletians had been stirring ever since the death of Alexander, and Eusebius was not slow to
use such an opportune lever. The object in view was two-fold, the restoration of Arius
to communion in Alexandria, without which the moral triumph of the reaction would be
unachieved, and the extrusion of Athanasius. Accordingly a fusion took place ^ between the
7 Eager opposition, however, was not lacking. The accounts
are confused, but the statement of the bishops leaves room for
a strong minority of malcontents, who tnay have elected 'Theonas'
(was he the exiled Arian bishop of Marmarica? the electors of
Theonas' in Epiph. Har. 68 are IVIeletians, but there is no
Theonas in the Meletian catalogue of 327 ; the Arians and Mele-
tians very likely combined ; the latter properly had no votes, but
they were not likely to regard this ; see Gwatkin, p. 66, note,
Church Quarterly Review, xvi. p. 393). The protests of the
poposition were apparently disregarded and Athanasius conse-
crated before the other side considered the question as closed,
(The statement of Epiph. Hcer. 69, that the Arians chose one
Achillas, is unsupported.) Athanasius was probably only just
thirty years old, and his opponents did not fail to question whether
he were not under the canonical age.
I Soz. ii. 21, 22 : the account is not very clear ; probably there
was a gradual approximation, the first step being the Meletian
support of the Arian Theonas against Athanasius in 338, if the
view suggested above is correct.
XXXVlll
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II.
Arians of Egypt and the Meletians, now under the leadership of John 'Arcaph,' whom
Meletius on his death-bed had consecrated as his successor against the terms of the Nicene
settlement. At any rate, the Meletians were attached to the cause by Eusebius by means of
large promises. At the same time (330?) Eusebius, having obtained the recall of Arius from
exile, wrote to Athanasius requesting him to admit Arius and his friends (Euzoius, Pistus, &c.)
to communion ; the bearer of the letter conveyed the assurance of dire consequences in
the event of his non-compliance (p. 131). Athanasius refused to admit persons convicted
of heresy at the Ecumenical Council. This brought a letter from the Emperor himself,
threatening deposition by an imperial mandate unless he would freely admit * all who should
desire it ; ' — a somewhat sweeping demand. Athanasius rephed firmly and, it would seem, with
effect, that ' the Christ-opposing heresy had no fellowship with the Catholic Church.' There-
upon Eusebius played what proved to be the first card of a long suit. A deputation of three
Meletian bishops arrived at the Palace with a complaint. Athanasius had, they said, levied a
precept (Kava^v) upon Egypt for Church expenses : they had been among the first victims of the
exaction. Luckily, two Presbyters of Alexandria were at court, and were able to disprove
the charge, which accordingly drew a stern rebuke upon its authors. Constantine wrote to
Athanasius summoning him to an audience, probably with the intention of satisfying himself as
to other miscellaneous accusations wnich were busily ventilated at this date, e.g., that he was
too young (cf. p. 133) when elected bishop, that he had governed with arrogance and violence,
that he used magic (this charge was again made 30 years later, Ammian. xv. 7), and sub-
sidised treasonable persons. Athanasius accordingly started for court, as it would seem,
late in 330 (see Letter 2i, p. 512 i'^.). His visit was successful, but matters went slowly;
Athanasius himself had an illness, which lasted a long time, and upon his recovery the
winter storms made communication impossible. Accordingly, his Easter letter for 332
{Letter 4) was sent unusually late — apparently in the first navigable weather of that year — and
Athanasius reached home, after more than a year's absence ^, when Lent was already half over.
The principal matters investigated by Constantine during the visit of Athanasius were
certain charges made by the three Meletian bishops, whom Eusebius had detained for the
purpose ; one of these, the story of Macarius and the broken chalice, will be given at length
presently. All alike were treated as frivolous, and Athanasius carried home with him a
commendatory letter from Augustus himself. Defeated for the moment, the puppets of
Eusebius matured their accusations, and in a year's time two highly damaging stories were ripe
for an ecclesiastical investigation.
(a) The case of Ischyi'os. This person had been ordained presbyter by Colluthus, and his ordination had been,
as we Jiave seen {§ 2), pronounced null and void by the Alexandrian Council of 324. In spite of this he had per-
sisted in carrying on his ministrations at the village where he lived (Irene Secontaruri, possibly the hamlet ' Irene *■
belonged to the township of S., there was a presbyter for the township, pp. 133, 145, but none at Irene, p io6)»
His place of worship was a cottage inhabited only by an orphan child ; of the few inhabitants of the place,
only seven, and those his own relations, would attend his services. During a visitation of his diocese, Athanasius
had heard of this from the presbyter of the township, and had sent Macarius, one of the clergy who were attending
him on his tour (cf. pp. 109, 139), to summon Ischyras for explanations. Macarius found the poor man ill in
bed and unable to come, but urged his father to dissuade him from his irregular proceedings. But instead of
desisting, Ischyras joined the Meletians. His first version of the matter appears to have been that Macarius had
used violence, and broken his chalice. The Meletians communicate this to Eusebius, who eggs them on to get up
the case. The story gradually improves. Ischyras, it now appeared, had been actually celebrating the Eucharist j
Macarius had burst in upon him, and not only broken the chalice but upset the Holy Table. In this form the
tale had been carried to Constantine when Athanasius was at Nicomedia. The relations of Ischyras, however,
prevailed upon him to recall his statements, and he presented the Bishop with a written statement that the whole
story was false, and had been extorted from him by violence. Ischyras was forgiven, but placed under censure,
which probably led to his eventually renewing the charge with increased bitterness. Athanasius now was accused
oi personally breaking the chalice, &c. In the letter of the council of Philippopolis the cottage of Ischyras becomes
a ' basilica ' which Athanasius had caused to be thrown down.
(b) The case oj Arsenius. Arsenius was Meletian bishop of Hypsele (not in the Meletian catalogue of 327).
By a large bribe, as it is stated, he was induced by John Arcaph to go into hiding among the Meletian monks of the
Thebaid ; ruinours were quietly set in motion that Athanasius had had him murdered, and had procured one of his
hands for magical purposes. A hand was circulated purporting to be the very hand in question. A report of the case,
including the last version of the Ischyras scandal, was sent to Constantine, who, startled by the new accusation, sent
orders to his half-brother, Dalmatius, a high official at Antioch, to enquire into the case. He appears to have suggested
a council at Csesarea under the presidency of Eusebius, which was to meet at some time in the year 334 (nepuaiv,
p. 141, cf. note 2 there, also Gwatkin, p. 84 note ; the ' 30 months ' of Soz. ii. 25 is an exaggeration). Athanasius,
however, obstmately declined a trial before a judge whom he regarded as biassed ; his refusal bitterly offended
the aged historian. Accordingly the venue was fixed for Tyre in the succeeding year ; a Count Dionysius was to
represent the Emperor, and see that all was conducted fairly, and Athanasius was stringently (p. 137) summoned to
» Fesi. Ind. iii. The Index is of course right in giving 330 — 331
M the year of his departure for Nicomedia, but makes a slip in
assigning his absence as the cause of delay in the despatch of the
Letter for that year instead of for the following one. See p. sia
note I.
COUNCIL OF TYRE.
XXXIX
attend. Meanwhile a trusted deacon was on the tracks of the missing man. Arsenius was traced to a ' monastery '
of Meletian brethren in the nome of Antaeopolis in Upper Egypt. Pinnes, the presbyter of the community, got
wind of the discovery, and smuggled Arsenius away down the Nile ; presently he was spirited away to Tyre. The
deacon, however, very astutely made a sudden descent upon the monastery in force, seized Pinnes, carried him to
Alexandria, brought him before the ' Duke,' confronted him with the monk who had escorted Arsenius away, and
forced them to confess to the whole plot. As soon as he was able to do so, Pinnes wrote to John Arcaph, warn-
ing him of the exposure, and suggesting that the charge had better be dropped (p. 135 ; the letter is an
amusingly naive exhibition of human rascality). Meanwhile (Socr. i. 29) Arsenius was heard of at an inn in Tyre
by the servant of a magistrate ; the latter had him arrested, and informed Athanasius 3. Arsenius stoutly denied
his identity, but was recognised by the bishop of Tyre, and at last confessed. The Emperor was informed and
wrote to Athanasius (p. 135), expressing his indignation at the plot, as also did Alexander, bishop of Thessa-
lonica. Arsenius made his peace with Athanasius, and in due time succeeded (according to the Nicene rule)
to the sole episcopate of Hypsele (p. 548). John Arcaph even admitted his guilt and renounced his schism, and
was invited to Court (p. 136) ; but his submission was not permanent.
According to the Apology of Athanasius, all this took place some time before the council of Tyre ; we cannot
fix the date, except that it must have come after the Easter of 332 (see above). It appears most natural, from
the language of Apol. Ar. Ji, to fix the exposure of Arsenius not very long before the summoning of the council
of Tyre, but long enough to allow for the renewed intrigues which led to its being convened. But this pushes
us back behind the intended council of Coesarea in 334 ; we seem therefore compelled to keep Arsenius waiting at
Tyre from about 333 to the summer of 335.
It must be remembered that the Council of Tyre was merely a rdpepynv to the great
Dedication Meeting at Jerusalem, which was to celebrate the Tn'cennalia of Constantine's
reign by consecrating his grand church on Mount Calvary. On their way to Jerusalem the
bishops were to despatch at Tyre their business of quieting the Egyptian troubles * (Eus. F. C.
iv. 41). To Tyre accordingly Athanasius repaired. He left Alexandria on July 11, 335, and
was absent, as it proved (according to the reckoning of the Hist. Acepk.^ below, p. 496), two
years, four months and eleven days.
§ 5. The Council of Tyre and first exile of Athanasius, 335 — 337.
Many of the bishops who were making their way to the great festival met at Tyre.
The Arian element was very strong. Eusebius of Nicomedia, Narcissus, Maris, Theognis,
Patrophilus, George, now bishop of Laodicea, are all familiar names. Ursacius and Valens,
* young ' both in years and in mind,' make their first entrance on the stage of ecclesiastical
intrigue ; Eusebius of Csesarea headed a large body of ' conservative ' malcontents : in the
total number of perhaps 150, the friends of Athanasius were outnumbered by nearly two to
one. (See Gwatkin's note^ p. 85, Hefele ii. 17, £ng Tra.) Eusebius of Csesarea took the
chair (yet see D.C.B. ii. 316 ''). The proceedings of the Council were heated and disorderly ;
promiscuous accusations were flung from side to side ; the president himself was charged by an
excited Egyptian Confessor with having sacrificed to idols (p. 104, n. 2), while against Athan-
asius every possible charge was raked up. The principal one was that of harshness and
violence. Callinicus, bishop of Pelusium, according to a later story 3, had taken up the cause
of Ischyras, and been deposed by Athanasius in consequence. A certain Mark had been
appointed to supersede him, and he had been subjected to military force. Certain Meletian
bishops who had refused to communicate with Athanasius on account of his irregular election,
had been beaten and imprisoned. A document from Alexandria testified that the Churches
were emptied on account of the strong popular feeling against these proceedings. The number
of witnesses, and the evident readiness of the majority of bishops to believe the worst against
him, inspired Athanasius with profound misgivings as to his chance of obtaining justice. He
had in vain objected to certain bishops as biassed judges ; when it was decided to investigate
the case of Ischyras on the spot, the commission of six was chosen from among the very
persons challenged (p. 13S). Equally unsuccessful was the protest of the Egyptian bishops
against the credit of the Meletian witnesses (p. 140). But on one point the accusers walked
into a trap. The ' hand of Arsenius ' was produced, and naturally made a deep impression
(Thdt. H.E. i. 30). But Athanasius was ready. ' Did you know Arsenius personally?' ' Yes'
is the eager reply from many sides. Promptly Arsenius is ushered in alive, wrapped up in
a cloak. The Synod expected an explanation of the way he had lost his hand. Athanasius
3 Who perhaps visited Tyre himself at this time, according
to an allusion in Hist. Acefh. xii., see Sievers, EinL. p. 131.
4 The conduct of Constantine will appear fairly consistent if
we suppose that after ordering the investigation at Antioch, supr.
(332 ?) he received proofs (333) of the falsehood of the Arsenius
story, but that, finding that the complaints vv-ere constantly re-
newed, and that Ath. refused to meet his accusers at Cacsarea,
he yielded to the suggestion (Eus. Nic?) that the assembly of so
many bishops at Jerusalem might be a valuable opportunity for
finally dealing with so troublesome a matter. He desired peace,
and had not lost his faith in councils. Hefele follows Socrates
i. 29. in his error as to the date of the discovery of Arsenius
(E. Tr. ii. 21).
I p. 107: Euseb. V.C. iv. 43, calls them 'the iairest of God's
youthful flock.' The Council of Sardica in 343 describes them as
' ungodly and foolish youths," Hil. Frag, ii., cf. pp. 120, 122.
3 Soz. ii. 25. ButCallinicus was a Meletian all along: pp.132.
137. 517-
xl
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IL, § 5.
turned up his cloak and shewed that one hand at least was there. There was a momeit of
suspense, artfully managed by Athanasius. Then the other hand was exposed, and the accusers
were requested to point out whence the third had been cut off (Socr. i. 29). This was too
much for John Arcaph, who precipitately fled (so Socr., he seems to have gone to Egypt
with the couriers mentioned below, cf. p. 142). But the Eusebians were made of sterner
stuff : the whole affair was a piece of magic ; or there had been an attempt to murder
Arsenius, who had hid himself from fear. At any rate Athanasius must not be allowed to
clear himself so easily. Accordingly, in order partly to gain time and partly to get up a more
satisfactory case, they prevailed on Count Dionysius, in the face of strong remonstrances
from Athanasius (p. 138), to despatch a commission of enquiry to the Mareotis in order to
ascertain the real facts about Ischyras. The nature of the commission may be inferred, firstly,
from its composition, four strong Arians and two (Theodore of Heraclea, and Macedonius of
Mopsuestia) reactionaries ; secondly, from the fact that they took Ischyras with them, but left
. Macarius behind in custody; thirdly, from the fact that couriers were sent to Egypt with
four days' start, and with an urgent message to the Meletians to collect at once in as large
numbers as possible at Irene, so as to impress the commissioners with the importance of the
Meletian community at that place. The Egyptian bishops present at Tyre handed in strongly-
worded protests to the Council, and to Count Dionysius, who received also a weighty
remonstrance from the respected Alexander, Bishop of Thessalonica. This drew forth from him
an energetic protest to the Eusebians (p. 142 s^.) against the composition of the commission.
His protest was not, however, enforced in any practical way, and the Egyptians thereupon
appealed to the Emperor (ti>.). Athanasius himself escaped in an open boat with four of his
bishops, and found his way to Constantinople, where he arrived on October 30. The Emperor
was out riding when he was accosted by one of a group of pedestrians. He could scarcely credit
his eyes and the assurance of his attendants that the stranger was none other than the culprit
of Tyre. Much annoyed at his appearance, he refused all communication; but the persistency
of Athanasius and the reasonableness of his demand prevailed. The Emperor wrote to
Jerusalem to summon to his presence all who had been at the Council of Tyre (pp. 105, 145).
Meanwhile the Mareotic Commission had proceeded with its task. Their report was kept secret, but eventu-
ally sent to Julius of Rome, who handed it over to Athanasius in 339 (p. 143). Their enquiry was carried on with
the aid of Philagrius the prefect, a strong Arian sympathiser, whose guard pricked the witnesses if they failed to
respond to the hints of the commissioners and the threats of the prefect himself. The clergy of Alexandria and the
Mareotis were excluded from the court, and catechumens, Jews and heathen, none of whom could properly have been
present on the occasion, were examined as to the interruption of the eucharistic service by Macarius (p. 1 19). Even
with these precautions the evidence was not all that could be wished. To begin with, it had all taken place on an
ordinary week-day, when there would be no Communion (pp. 115, 125, 143); secondly, when Macarius came in
Ischyras was in bed ; thirdly, certain witnesses whom Athanasius had been accused of secreting came forward in
evidence of the contrary (p. 107). The prefect consoled himself by letting loose the violence of the heathen mob
(p. 108) against the ' virgins ' of the Church. The catholic party were helpless ; all they could do was to protest
in writing to the commission, the council, and the prefect (pp. 138 — 140. The latter protest is dated loth of Thoth,
i.e. Sep. 8, 335, Diocletian leap-year).
The commission returned to Tyre, where the council passed a resolution (Soz. ii. 25) deposing Athanasius.
They then proceeded to Jerusalem for the Dedication * of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Here Arius with
certain others (probably including Euzoius) was received to communion on the strength of the confession of faith
he had presented to Constantine a few years before, and the assembled bishops drew up a synodal letter an-
nouncing the fact to Egypt and the Church at large (pp. 144, 460). At this juncture the summons from
Constantine arrived. The terms of it shewed that the Emperor was not disposed to hear more of the broken
chalice or the murdered Arsenius : but the Eusebians were not at a loss. They advised the bishops to go quietly
to their homes, while five of the inner circle, accompanied by Eusebius of Csesarea, who had a panegyric to deliver
in the imperial presence, responded to the summons of royalty. They made short work of Athanasius. The
whole farrago of charges examined at T3rre was thrown aside. He had threatened to starve the navev5aifj.aiu irarpis,
the chosen capital of Constantine, by stopping the grain ships which regularly left Alexandria every autumn. It
was in vain for Athanasius to protest that he had neither the means nor the power to do anything of the kind.
_' You are a rich man,' replied Eusebius of Nicomedia, ' and can do whatever you like.' The Emperor was touched
in a sore place 3. He promptly ordered the banishment of Athanasius to Treveri, whither he started, as it would
seem, on Feb. 5, 336 (pp. 105, 146, 503, note il). The friends of Athanasius professed to regard the
banishment as an act of imperial clemency, in view of what might have been treated as a capital matter, involving
as it did the charge of treason (p. 105); and Constantine II., immediately after his father's death, stated
(pp. 146, 272, 288) in a letter (written before he became Augustus in Sept. 337) that he had been sent to
Treveri merely to keep him out of danger, and that Constantine had been prevented only by death from carrying
out his intention of restoring him. These charitable constructions need not be rudely ignored ; but in all prob-
ability the anxiety to be rid of a cause of disturbance was at least one motive with the peace-loving Emperor. At
* JThe Greek Church still commemorates this Festival on Sep.
13 ; the Chron. Pasck. gives Sep. 17 for the Dedication. But
if the Mareotic Commissioners returned to Tyre, as they certainly
did (Soz. I.e.), these dates are untrustworthy.
3 The philosopher Sopater had been put to death
charge a few years before, D.C.B. i. 631.
on a similar
DEATH OF CONSTANTINE. END OF FIRST EXILE. xli
any rate the Eusebians could not obtain the imperial sanction to their proposed election of a successor (Fistus?) to
Athanasius. On his return after the death of Constantine he found his see waiting for him unoccupied {Afiol c
Ar. 29, p. 115).
The close of the Tricennalia was made the occasion of a council at Constantinople (winter 335 — 336). Mar-
cellus was deposed for heresy and Basil nominated to the see of Ancyra, Eusebius of Caesarea undertaking to refute
the ' new Samosatene.' Other minor depositions were apparently carried out at the same time, and several Western
bishops, including Protogenes of Sardica, had reason later on to repent of their signatures to the proceedings
(Hil. Fragm. iii.).
Death of Arius. From Jerusalem Arius had gone to Alexandria, but (Soz. ii. 29) had not succeeded in
obtaining admission to the Communion of the Church there. Accordingly he repaired to the capital about the
time of the Council just mentioned. The Eusebians resolved that here at any rate he should not be repelled.
Arius appeared before the Emperor and satisfied him by a sworn profession of orthodoxy, and a day was fixed for
his reception to communion. The story of the distress caused to the aged bishop Alexander is well known. He
was heard to pray in the church that either Arius or himself might be taken away before such an outrage to the
faith should be permitted. As a matter of fact Arius died suddenly the day before his intended reception. His
friends ascribed his death to magic, those of Alexander to the judgment of God, the public generally to the effect of
excitement on a diseased heart (Soz. 1. c). Athanasius, while taking the second view, describes the occurrence
with becoming sobriety and reserve (pp. 233, 565). Alexander himself died very soon after, and Paul was elected
in his place (D.C.B. art. Macedonius (2)), but was soon banished on some unknown charge, whereupon
Eusebius of Nicomedia was translated to the capital see (between 336 and 340; date uncertain. Cf. D.C.B. ii.
367 a).
Of the sojourn of Athanasius at Treveri, the noble hemp of the Emperors on the banks of
the Mosel, we know few details, but his presence there appeals to the historic imagination.
(See D.C.B. i. 186 a.) He cannot have been there much above a year. He kept the Easter
festival, probably of 336, certainly of 337, in the still unfinished Church (p. 244 : the pre-
sent Cathedral is said to occupy the site of what was then an Imperial palace : but the main .
palace is apparently represented by the ' Roman baths).' He was not suffered to want (p. 146) :
he had certain Egyptian brethren with him ; and found a sympathetic friend in the good
Bishop Maximinus (cf. p. 239). The tenth festal letter, § i, preserves a short extract from
a letter written from Trier to his clergy.
Constantine died at Nicomedia, having previously received baptism from the hands of Euse-
bius, on Whit-Sunday, May 22, 337. None of his sons were present, and the will is said to have
been entrusted to the Arian chaplain mentioned above (p. xxxiv). Couriers carried the news
to the three Csesars, and at a very moderate '* rate of reckoning, it may have been known at Trier
by about June 4. Constantine, as the eldest son, probably expected more from his father's
will than he actually obtained. At any rate, on June 17 he wrote a letter to the people
and clergy of Alexandria, announcing the restoration of their bishop in pursuance of an
intention of his father's, which only death had cut short. Constantius meanwhile hastened
(from the East, probably Antioch) to Constantinople (D.C.B. i. 651): he too had expectations,
for he was his father's favourite. The brothers met at Sirmium, and agreed upon a division
of the Empire, Constantius taking the East, Constans Italy and Illyricum, and Constantine
the Gauls and Africa. On Sep. 9 they formally assumed the title Augustus 5. Athanasius had
apparently accompanied Constantine to Sirmium, and on his way eastward met Constantius at
Viminacium (p. 240), his first interview with his future persecutor. He presently reached
Constantinople (p. 272), and on his way southward, at Csesarea in Cappadocia, again met
Constantius, who was hurrying to the Persian frontier. On Nov. 23 he reached Alexandria
amid great rejoicings (pp. 104, 503, Fest. Ind. x.), the clergy especially 'esteeming that the
happiest day of their lives.' But the happiness was marred by tumults (Soz. ii. 2, 5, Hil.
'Fragm. iii. 8, Fest. Lid. xi., next year 'again'), which were, however, checked by the civil
power, the prefect Theodorus being, apparently, favourable to Athanasius (pp. 102, 527, note 2).
The festal letter for 338 would seem to have been finished at Alexandria, but the point is not
absolutely clear. Here begins his second period of ' quiet,' of one year, four months and
twenty-four days, i.e., from Athyr 27 (Nov. 23), 337, to Pharmuthi 21 (April 16), 339.
§ 6. Renewal of Troubles. Second Exile. Fistus and Gregory, culmination of Eusebian
intrigue. Rome and Sardica. (337 — 346).
(i). The stay of Athanasius at Alexandria was brief and troubled. The city was still
disturbed by Arian malcontents, who had the sympathy of Jews and Pagans, and it was
reported that the monks, and especially the famous hermit Antony, were on their side. This
4 The courier Palkdius, who was considered a marvel, could
carry a message from Nisibis to CP. on horseback in three days,
about 250 miles a day, Socr. vii. 19. At 100 miles a day, i.e. eight
miles an hour for 122 hours out of the 24, the 1,300 miles from
Nicomedia to Treveri would be easily covered by a horseman
in the time specified ; see Gibbon quoted p. 115, note 1, and for
other examples, Gwatkin, p. 137.
5 This date is certain iGwatk.. 108, note), but the meeting at
Sirmium may possibly fall in the following summer.
xlti PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 6 (i).
impression, however, was dissipated by the appearance of the great Ascetic himself, who, at the
urgent request of the orthodox (pp. 214 sq., 503), consented to shew himself for two days in
the uncongenial atmosphere of the city. The mystery and marvellous reputation, which even
then surrounded this much-talked-of character, attracted Christians and heathen alike, in large
numbers, to hear and see him, and, if possible, to derive some physical benefit from his touch.
He denounced Arianism as the worst of heresies, and was solemnly escorted out of town by
the bishop in person. As an annalist toward the close of the century tells us, ' Antony, the great
leader, came to Alexandria, and though he remained there only two days, shewed himself
wonderful in many things, and healed many. He departed on the third of Messori' (i.e.,
July 27, 338).
Meanwhile the Eusebians were busy. In the new Emperor Constantius, the Nicomedian found a willing
patron : probably his translation to the See of Constantinople falls at this time. It was represented to the
Emperor that the restoration of the exiled Bishops in 337, and especially that of Athanasius, was against all
ecclesiastical order. Men deposed by a Synod of the Church had presumed to return to their sees under the
sanction of the secular authority. This was technically true, but the proceedings at Tyre were regarded by Athan.
as depriving that Synod of any title to ecclesiastical authority (pp. 104, 271). It is impossible to accept
ail pied de la lettre the protests on either side against state interference with the Church : both parties were
willing to use it on their own side, and to protest against its use by their opponents. Constantine had summoned'
the Council of Nicaea, had (Soz. i. 17) fixed the order of its proceedings, and had enforced its decisions by civil
penalties. The indignant rhetoric of Hist. Ar. 52 (p. 289) might mutatis nominibus have been word for word the
remonstrance of a Secundus or Theonas against the great Ecumenical Synod of Christendom. At Tyre,
Jerusalem, and CP., the Eusebians had their turn, and again at Antioch, 338 — 341. The Council of Sardica
relied on the protection of Constans, that of Philippopolis on Constantius. The reign of the latter was the period of
Arian triumph ; that of Theodosius secured authority to the Catholics. The only consistent opponents of civil
intervention in Church affairs were the Donatists in the West and the Eunomians or later Arians in the East (with
the obscure exception of Secundus and Theonas, the original Arians cannot claim the compliment paid by Fialon,
p. 115, to their independence). To the Donatists is due the classical protest against Erastianism, ' Quid Imperatori
cum ecclesia ' (D. C. B. i. 652). Believing, as the present writer does, that the Donatist protest expresses a true
principle, and that the suljjection of religion to the State is equally mischievous with that of the State to
the Church, it is impossible not to regret these consequences of the conversion of Constantine. But allowance
must be made for the sanguine expectations with which the astonishing novelty of a Christian Emperor filled men's
minds. It was only as men came to realise that the civil sword might be drawn in support of heresy that
they began to reflect on the impropriety of allowing to even a Christian Emperor a voice in Church councils.
Athanasius was the first to grasp this clearly. The voice of protest^ sounds in the letter of the Egyptian Synod of
338-9 ; throughout his exiles he steadily regarded himself, and was regarded by his flock, as the sole rightful
Bishop of Alexandria, and continued to issue his Easter Letters from first to last. At the same time, it must be
admitted that if he was right in returning to Alexandria in 337 without restoration by a Synod, he could not
logically object to the return of Eusebius and TheoL,'nis (p. 104), who had not been deposed at Nicsea, but
banished by the Emperor. The technical rights of Chrestus and Amphion (/. c.) were no better than those of
Gregory or George. The spiritual elevation of Athanasius over the head and shoulders of his opponents is plain
to ourselves; we see clearly the moral contrast between the councils of Rome and Antioch (340-41), of Sardica
and Philippopolis (343), of Alexandria (362) and Seleucia (359). But to men like the Eastern ' conservatives' the
technical point of view necessarily presented itself with great force, and in judging of their conduct we must not
assume that it was either ' meaningless diabolism ' or deliberate sympathy with Arianism that led so many bishops
of good character to see in Athanasius and the other exiles contumacious offenders against Church order. (I am
quite unable to accept M. Fialon's sweeping verdict upon the ?najority of Oriental bishops as ' weak, vicious, more
devoted to their own interests than to the Church,' &c. , p. 116. He takes as literally exact the somewhat turgid
rhetorical complaints of Greg. Naz. )
But the Eusebians were not limited to technical complaints. They had stirring accounts to give of the
disorders which the return of Athanasius had excited, of the ruthless severity with which they had been put down
by the prefect, who was, it was probably added, a mere tool in the hands of the bishop. Accordingly in the course
of 338 the subservient Theodorus was recalled, and Philagrius the Cappadocian, who had governed with immense 3
popularity in 335 — 337 [Fest. Ind. and p. 107 sq.), was sent to fill the office a second time. This was regarded
at Alexandria as an Arian triumph (see p. 527, note 2). His arrival did not tend to allay the disorders.
Old charges against Athanasius were raked up, and a new one added, namely that of embezzlement of the
com appropriated to the support of widows by the imperial bounty. The Emperor appears to have sent a
letter of complaint to Athanasius (p. 273), but to have paid little attention to his defence. The Eusebians
now ventured to send a bishop of their own to Alexandria in the person of Pistus, one of the original Arian
presbyters, who was consecrated by the implacable Secundus. The date of this proceeding is obscure, probably
it was conducted in an irregular manner, so as to render it possible to ignore it altogether if, as proved to be the
case, a stronger candidate should be necessary. First, however, it was necessary to try the temper of the West,
A. deputation consisting of a presbyter Macarius and two deacons, Martyrius and Hesychius, was sent to Julius,
bishop of Rome, to lay before him the enormities of Athanasius, Marcellus, Paul, Asclepas and the rest, and to
1 As he had previously referred the Donatist schism to the
commission of Rome and the Council of Aries.
2 But they complain, p. 104, § 8, oi coercion not of Erastianism.
3 The ordinary time for the entry of the Prefect upon his duties
seems to have been about the end of the Egyptian Year (end
of August). Accordingly the prefectures and years in Fest. Ind.
roughly correspond : Philagrius vi^as already Prefect when the
Mareotic Commission arrived (Aug. 335). According to the head-
ings to the Festal Letters vi., vii., he had superseded Paternus
in 334: either the Index or the headings are mistaken. _ For
the popularity of Philagrius, see Greg. Naz. Orat. xxi. 28,
who mentions that his reappointment was due to the request of
a deputation from Alex, (this must have come from the Arians I)
and that the rejoicings which welcomed his return exceeded any
that could have greeted the Emperor, and nearly equalled those
which had welcomed the return of Athanasius himself. But Gre-
gory is a rhetorician ; see p. 138, and Tillem. viii. 664.
SECOND EXILE OF ATHANASIUS.
xliii
urge the superior title of Pistus to the recognition of the Church. But upon hearing of this Athanasius summoned
the Egyptian Episcopate together (winter 338 — 339), and composed a circular letter (pp. lOl — no) dealing fully
with the charges against him, especially with regard to the manner of his election and the irregularity of his return
a year before. Two presbyters carried the letter in haste to Rome, and enlightened the Church there as to the
antecedents of Pistus. Next day it was announced that Macarius, ' in spite of a bodily ailment,' had decamped
in the night. The deacons however remained, and requested Julius to call a council, undertaking that if Athana-
sius and the Eusebians were confronted all the charges brought by the latter should be made good. This proposal
seemed unobjectionable, and Julius wrote inviting all parties to a council at Rome, or some other place to be
agreed upon (p. 272); his messengers to the Eusebians were the Roman presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus*,
(p. III). The council was fixed for the following summer (so it would seem) ; but no reply was received from
the Eusebians, who kept the presbyters in the East until the following January, when they at length started for
Rome bearing a querulous and somewhat shifty reply (answered by Julius, p. Ill, sg^.). But before the invita-
tion had reached the Eusebians they had assembled at Antioch, where Constantius was in residence for the winter
(laws dated Dec. 27 ; the court ther'' n January? p. 92), repeated the deposition of Athanasius, and appointed
Gregory, a Cappadocian, to succeed uim. It had become clear that Pistus was a bad candidate ; perhaps no formal
synod could be induced to commit themselves to a man excommunicated at Nicsea and consecrated by Secundus.
At any rate they tried to find an unexceptionable nominee. But their first, Eusebius, afterwards bishop of Emesa,
refused the post, and so they came to Gregory s, a former student of Alexandria, and under personal obligations to
its bishop (Greg. Naz. Or. xxi. 15).
All was now ready for the blow at Athanasius. It fell in Lent (pp. 94, 503). His position
since the arrival of Philagrius had been one of unrest. ' In this year again,' says our annalist,
'there were many tumults. On the xxii Phamenoth (i.e. Sunday, Mar. 18, 339) he was
sought after by his persecutors in the night. On the next morning he fled from the
Church of Theonas after he had baptized many. Then on the fourth day (Mar, 22) Gregory
the Cappadocian entered the city as bishop' (FesL Ind. xi.). But Athanasius (p. 95),
remained quietly in the town for about four weeks more^. He drew up for circulation
•'throughout the tribes' (cf. Judges xix. 29) a memorandum and appeal, describing the
intrusion of Gregory and the gross outrages which had accompanied it. This letter was
written on or just after Easter Day (April 15), and immediately after this he escaped from
Alexandria and made his way to Rom.e. The data as to the duration of the periods of ' quiet '
and exile fix the date of his departure for Easter Monday, April 16. This absence from
Alexandria was his longest, lasting 'ninety months and three days,' i.e. from Pharmuthi 21
(April 16) 339 to Paophi 24 (October 21), 346.
(2.) The Second Exile of Athanasius falls into two sections, the first of four years
(p. 239), to the council of Sardica (339—343), the second of three years, to his return
in Oct. 346. The odd six months cannot be distributed with certamty unless we can
arrive at a more exact result than at present appears attainable for the month and duration
of the Sardican synod.
In May, 339, Athanasius, accompanied by a few of his clergy (story of the 'detachment '
of his monk Ammonius in Socr. iv. 23, sub fin.), arrived at Rome. He was within three
months followed by Marcellus, Paul of CP., Asclepas, and other exiles who had been restored
at the end of 337 but had once more been ejected. Soon after, Carpones, an original Arian
of Alexandria, appeared as envoy of Gregory. He confirmed all that had been alleged against
Pistus, but failed to convince Juhus that his own bishop was anything but an Arian. Mean-
while time wore on, and no reply came from the Eusebians. Athanasius gave himself up
to enforced leisure and to the services of the Church. Instead of his usual Easter letter
for the following spring, he sent a few lines to the clergy of Alexandria and a letter to his
right-hand man, bishop Serapion of Thmuis, requesting him to make the necessary announce-
ment of the season. Gregory made his first attempt (apparently also his last) to fix the Easter
Festival, but in the middle of Lent, to the amusement of the public, discovered that a mistake
had been made, the correction of which involved his adherents in an extra week of Lenten
austerities. We can well imagine that the spectacle of the abstracted asceticism of Ammonius
aroused the curiosity and veneration of the Roman Christians, and thus gave an impulse to the
ascetic life in the West (see Jerome, cited below, p. 191). That is all we know of the life
of Athanasius during the first eighteen months of his stay at Rome.
In the early spring of 340 the presbyters returned (see above) with a letter from a number of bisho^js, in-
cluding the Eusebian leaders, who had assembled at Antioch in January. This letter is carefully dissected in the
4 It is possible, however, that these carried a second letter,
after the arrival of Ath. See pp. no, 273.
5 Gregory shewed his Arianism by employing Ammon as his
secretary, see p. 96. The curious parallelism between Gregory
and George (infr. § 8), — the names difiering (in Latin) by a single
letter only, both Arians, both Cappadocians, both intruded bishops
of Alexandria, both arriving from court, both arriving in Lent,
both exercising violence, both charged by Ath. with the storming
of churches, with similar scenes of desecration, maltreatment of
virgins, &c., in either case, — is one of the strangest examples of
history repeating itself within a few years. What wonder that the
fifth-century historians confuse the two still further together, and
that they still find followers? The most important point of con-
fusion is the alleged murder of Gregory (due to Theodoret), who
really died a natural death. It is none too soon for this time-
honoured blunder to do the like. On the inveterate tendency
of Georges and Gregories to coalesce, and exchange names in
transcription (to say nothing of modern typography), see D.C-B.
ii. pp. 640 — 650, 778 sq., 798 sg., passim. r\ • ■ <
6 In some church other than ' Theonas,' probably ' Quirmus,
which latter, however, was stormed on Easter Day, pp- 273i 95>
note 3. The statement, Hist. Ar. lo, that he sailed ior Rome
before Gregory's arrival is in any case verbally inexact, but it
may refer to h s flight irom 'Theonas.'
xliv PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 6 (2).
reply of the Roman Council, and appears to have been highly acrimonious in its tone. Julius kept it secret
for a time (p. Iii), hoping against hope that after all some of the Orientals would come for the council ; but at
length he gave up all expectations of the kind, and convoked the bishops of Italy, who examined the cases of the
various exiles (p. 1 14). All the old charges against Athanasius were gone into with the aid of the Mareotic report
(the ex parte character of which Julius strongly emphasises) and of the account of the proceedings at Tyre. The
council had no difficulty in pronouncing Athanasius completely innocenfon all points. The charge of ignoring
the proceedings of a council was disposed of by pointing out the uncanonical character of Gregory's appointment
(p. 115), and the infraction by the complainants of the decrees of Nicsea. With regard to Marcellus, he responded
to the request of the bishops by volunteering a written confession of his faith (p. 116, Epiph. Hcer. 72), which was
in fact the creed of the Roman Church itself (Caspari, Quellen iii. 28, note, argues that the creed must have been
tendered at an earlier visit, 336—337, but without cogent reasons). Either Julius and his bishops were (like the
fathers of Sardica) very easily satisfied, or Marcellus exercised extreme reserve as to his peculiar tenets (Zahn, p. 71,
makes out the best case he can for his candour). The other exiles were also pronounced innocent, and the synod
' restored ' them all. It remained to communicate the result to the Oriental bishops. This was done by Julius in
a letter drawn up in the name of the council, and preserved by Athanasius in his Apology. Its subject matter has
been sufficiently indicated, but its statesmanlike logic and grave severity must be appreciated by reference to the
document itself. It has been truly called 'one of the ablest documents in the entire controversy.' It is worth
observing that Julius makes no claim whatever to pass a final judgment as successor of S. Peter, although the
Orientals had expressly asserted the equal authority of all bishcps, however important the cities in which they
ruled (p. 113) ; on the contrary he merely claims that without his own consent, proceedings against bishops would
lack the weight oi universal cov&ft-a.'i (p. 118). At the same time he claims to be in possession of the traditions of
S. Paul and especially of S. Peter, and is careful to found upon precedent (that of Dionysius) a claim to be con-
sulted in matters alleged against a bishop of Alexandria. This claim, by its modesty, is in striking contrast
with that which Socrates (ii. 17) and Sozom. (iii. 8, 10) make for him, — that owing to the greatness of his see,
the care of all the churches pertained to him : and this again, which represents what the Greek Church of the early
fifth century was accustomed to hear from Rome, is very different from the claim to a jurisdiction of divine right
which we find formulated in Leo the Great.
The letter of Julius was considered at the famous Council of the Dedication (of
Constantine's 'Golden' Church at Antioch, see Eus. V.C. iii. 50), held in the summer of 341
(between May 22 and Sept. i, see Gwatkin, p. 114, note). Eusebius of Constantinople was
there (he had only a few months longer to live), and most of the Arian leaders. Csesarea was
represented by Acacius, who had succeeded Eusebius some two years before ; a man of whom
we shall hear more. But of the ninety-odd bishops who attended, the majority must have
been conservative in feeling, such as Dianius of Caesarea, who possibly presided. At any rate
Hilary {de Syn. 32) calls it 'a synod of saints,' and its canons passed into the accepted body
of Church Law. Their reply to Julius is not extant, but we gather from the historians that it
was not conciliatory. (Socr. ii. 15, 17; Soz. iii. 8, 10; they are in such hopeless confusion
as to dates and the order of events that it is difficult to use them here ; Theodoret is more
accurate but less full.)
But the council marks an epoch in a more important respect ; with it begins the formal
Doctrinal Reaction against the Nicene Formula. We have traces of previous confessions,
such as that of Arius and Euzoius, 330 — 335, and an alleged creed drawn up at CP. in 336.
But only now begins the long series of attempts to raise some other formula to a position of
equality with the Nicene, so as to eventually depose the 6\ioovcnov from its position as an
ecumenical test.
The first suggestion of a new creed came firom the Arian bishops, who propounded a formula (p. 461, § 22),
with a disavowal of any intention of disparaging that of Nicsea (Socr. ii. 10), but suspiciously akin to the evasive
confession of Arius, and prefaced with a suicidally worded protest against being considered as followers of the
latter. The fate of this creed in the council is obscure ; but it would seem to have failed to commend itself
to the majority, who put forward a creed alleged to have been composed by Lucian the martyr. This (see
above, p. xxviii, and p. 461, notes 5 — 9), was hardly true of the creed as it stood, but it may have been
signed by Lucian as a test when he made his peace with bishop Cyril. At any rate the creed is catholic in
asserting the exact Likeness of the Son to the Father's Essence (yet the Arians could admit this as de facto true,
though not originally so ; only the word Essence would, if honestly taken, fairly exclude their sense), but anti-
Nicene in omitting the bii.oovai.tiv, and in the phrase t;" p.\v vTrocTdtm rpia, rfj Se (rvtKpwula ev, an artfully chosen
point of contact between Origen on the one hand, and Asterius, Lucian, and Paul of Samosa'ta on the other. The
anathemas, also, let in an Arian interpretation. This creed is usually referred to as the ' Creed of the Dedication '
or ' Lucianic ' Creed, and represents, on the one hand the extreme limit of concession to which Arians were willing
to go, on the other the theological rallying point of the gradually forming body of reasoned conservative opinion
which under the nickname of * semi-Arianism ' (Epiph. /far. 73; it was repudiated by Basil of Ancyra, &c.)
gradually worked toward the recognition of the Nicene formula.
A third formula was presented by Theophronius, bishop of Tyana, as a personal statement of belief, and was
widely signed by way of approval. It insists like the Lucianic creed on the pretemporal yivvTicris, against Mar-
cellus, adding two other points (hypostatic pre-existence and eternal kingdom of the Son) in the same direction,
and closing with an anathema against Marcellus, Sabellius, Paul, and all who communicate with any of their
supporters. This was of course a direct defiance of Julius and the Westerns (Mr. Gwatkin, by a slip, assigns this
anathema to the ' fourth ' creed).
Lastly, a few months after the council (late autumn of 341) a few bishops reassembled in order to send
a deputation to Constans (since 340 sole Western Emperor). They decided to substitute for the genuine
creeds of the council a fourth formulary, which accordingly the Arians Maris and Narcissus, and the neutrals
Theodore of Heraclea and Mark of Arethusa, conveyed to the West. The assertion of the eternal reign of Christ
COUNCILS OF THE DEDICATION AND OF SARDICA. xlv
was strengthened, and the name of Marcellus omitted, but the Nicene anathemas were skilfully adapted so as to
strike at the Marcellian and admit the Arian doctrine of the divine Sonship. This creed became the basis
on which the subsequent Arianising confessions of 343 (Philippopolis), 344 (Macrostich), and 351 (Sirmium) were
moulded by additions to and modifications of the anathemas. This series of creeds mark ' the stationary period of
Arianism,' i.e. between the close of the first generation (Arius, Asterius, Eusebius of Nicomedia) and the
beginnings of the divergence of parties under the sole reign of Constantius. At present opposition to the school
of Marcellus and to the impregnable strength of the West under a Catholic Emperor kept the reactionary party
united.
It has been necessary to dwell upon the work of this famous Council in view of its
subsequent importance. It is easy to see how the Eastern bishops were prevailed upon to take
the bold step of putting forth a Creed to rival the Nicene formula. The formal approval of
Marcellus at Rome shewed, so they felt, the inadequacy of that formula to exclude Sabellianism,
or rather the direct support which that heresy could find in the word 'homoiision.' This
being so, provided they made it clear that they were not favouring Arianism, they would be
doing no more than their duty in providing a more efficient test. But here the Arian group saw
their opportunity. Conservative willingness to go behind Nicsea must be made to subserve
the supreme end of revoking the condemnation of Arianism. Hence the confusion of counsels
reflected in the multiplicity of creeds. The result pleased no one. The Lucianic Creed,
with its anti-Arian clauses, tempered by equivocal qualifications, was a feeble and indirect
weapon against Marcellus, who could admit in a sense the pre-seonian yewriais and the ' true '
sonship. On the other hand, the three creeds which only succeeded in gaining secondary
ratification, while express against Marcellus, were worthless as against Arianism. On the
whole, the fourth creed, in spite of its irregular sanction, was found the most useful for the
time (341 — 351); but as their doctrinal position took definite form, the Conservative wing
fell back on the 'Lucianic' Creed, and found in it a bridge to the Nicene (cf. pp. 470, 472,
Hil. de Syn. 33, and Gwatkin, p. 119, note).
(3.) Athanasius remained in Rome more than three years after his departure from
Alexandria (April, 339 — May? 342, see p. 239). During the last of these years, the dis-
pute connected with him had been referred by Julius to Constans, who had requested his
brother to send some Oriental bishops with a statement of their case : this was the reason of
the deputation (see above) of the winter of 341. They found Constans at Treveri, but owing
to the warnings of good Bishop Maximinus3, he refused to accept their assurances, and sent
them ignominiously away. This probably falls in the summer of 342, the deputation on
arriving in Italy having found that Constans had already left Milan for his campaign against
the Franks (Gwatkin, p. 122, note 3). If this be so, Constans had already made up his mind
that a General Council was the only remedy, and had written to Constantius to arrange for
one. Before leaving Milan he had summoned Athanasius from Rome, and announced to him
what he had done. The young Prince was evidently an admirer of Athanasius, who had
received from him in reply to a letter of self-defence, written from Alexandria, an order for
certain nvKTia, or bound volumes of the Scriptures (see Montfaucon, Animadv. xv., in Migne
XXV., p. clxxvi.). The volumes had been delivered before this date. Constans hurried off to
Gaul, while Athanasius remained at Milan, where he afterwards received a summons to follow
the Emperor to Treveri* ; here he met the venerable Hosius and others, and learned that the
Emperors had fixed upon Sardica (now Sophia in Bulgaria), on the frontier fine of the dominions
of Constans s, as the venue for the great Council, which was to assemble in the ensuing summer.
Athanasius must have kept the Easter of 343 at Treveri : he had written his usual Easter letter
(now lost) most probably from Rome or Milan, in the previous spring. The date of assembly
and duration of the Sardican synod are, unfortunately, obscure. But the proceedings must
have been protracted by the negotiations which ended in the departure of the Easterns, and
(p. 124, note 2) by the care with which the evidence against the incriminated bishops was
afterwards gone into^.
We shall probably be safe in supposing that the Council occupied the whole of August
3 Bitter complaint in Hil. Fragm. iii. 27 ; cf. infr, p. 463,
Soz. iii. 10, who wrongly gives ' Italy' as the place.
4 This may have been in the autumn, after the close of the
campaign, but see in/r. ch. v. § 3, c, d
5 Hefele i. 91, is singular in placing it in the empire of Con-
stantius. The Ichtiman range between Sophia and Philippopolis
was the natural boundary between Thrace and Moesia, or ' Dacia
Media.'
* On the one hand the deputation after the council reached
Constantius at Antioch about Easter (April 15), 344. They were,
however sent not directly by the Council, but by Constans after
its close (Thdt. ii. 8). We may be certain that their arrival at
Antioch was at the very least two months after the close of the
council ; but in all probability the interval was much longer.
Again, the course of events described above forbids us to put
the council earlier than the early summer of 343. But according
to the Festal Index xv. the council at any rate began before the
end of August in that year. If the bishops left their churches
after Easter (a very natural and usual arrangement, compare
Nicaea, the Dedication, &c.). they could easily assemble by il.e
end of June. The Orientals came somewhat later. The begin-
ning of July is accordingly our terminus a quo, the end of
January our terminus ad quern. What exact part of the interval
the council occupied we cannot decide.
xlvi
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IL, § 6 ^3).
and September, and that Constans sent Bishops Euphrates and Vincent to his brother at
Antioch as soon as the worst weather of winter was over.
The Western bishops assembled at Sardica to the number of about 95 (see p. 147).
Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas arrived with Hosius from Treveri. Paul of Con-
stantinople, for some unknown reason, was absent, but was represented by Asclepas 7.
The Orientals came in a body, and with suspicion. They had the Counts Musonianus and
Hesychius, and (according to Fest. Ind., cf p. 276) the ex-Prefect Philagrius, as advisers
and protectors : they were lodged in a body at the Palace of Sophia. The proceedings
were blocked by a question of privilege. The Easterns demanded that the accused bishops
-should not be allowed to take their seats in the Council ; the majority replied that, pending
the present enquiry, all previous decisions against them must be in fairness considered
suspended. There was something to be said on both sides (see Hefele, p. 99), but on the whole,
the synod being convoked expressly to re-hear both sides, the majority were perhaps justified in
refusing to exclude the accused. A long interchange (p. 119), of communications followed,
and at last, alleging that they were summoned home by the news of the victory in the Persian
war, the minority disappeared by night, sending their excuse by the Sardican Presbyter Eus-
tathius (p. 275). At Philippopolis, within the dominions of Constantius, they halted and drew
up a long and extremely wild and angry statement of what had occurred, deposing and
condemning all concerned, from Hosius, Julius and Athanasius downward. They added the
Antiochene Confession ('fourth ' of 341), with the addition of some anathemas directed at the
system of Marcellus.
Among
the signatures, which included most of the surviving Arian
leaders, along with Basil of Ancyra, and other moderate men, we recognise that of Ischyras,
'bishop from the Mareotis,' who had enjoyed the dignity without the burdens of the Episcopate
since the Council of Tyre (p. 144). The document was sent far and wide, among the rest
to the Donatists of Africa (Hef., p. 171).
This rupture doomed the purpose of the council to failure : instead of leading to agreement it had made the
difference a hopeless one. But the Westerns were still a respectable number, and might do much to forward the
cause of justice and of the Nicene Faith. Two of the Easterns had joined them, Asterius of Petra and Arius,
bishop of an unknown see in Palestine. The only other Oriental present, Diodorus of Tenedos, appears to have
come, like Asclepas, &c. , independently of the rest. The work of the council was partly judicial, partly legis-
lative. The question was raised of issuing a supplement to, or formula explanatory of, the Nicene creed, and
a draft (preserved Thdt. II. E. ii. 8) was actually made, but the council declined to sanction anything which
should imply that the Nicene creed was insufficient (p. 484, correcting Thdt. ubi supra, and Soz. iii. 12).
The charges against all the exiles were carefully examined and dismissed. This was also the case with the
complaints against the orthodoxy of Marcelhis, who was allowed to evade the very point which gave most offence
(p. 125). Probably the ocular evidence (p. 124) of the violence which many present had suffered, indisposed
the fathers to believe any accusations from such a quarter. The synod next proceeded to legislate. Their canons
were twenty in number, the most important being canons 3 — 5, which permit a deposed bishop to demand the
reference of his case to 'Julius bishop of Rome,' 'honouring the memory of Peter the Apostle;' the deposition
to be suspended pending such reference ; the Roman bishop, if the appeal seem reasonable, to request the re-
hearing of the case in its own province, and if at the request of the accused he sends a presbyter to represent him,
such presbyter to rank as though he were his principal in person. The whole scheme appears to be novel and to
have been suggested by the history of the case of the exiles. The canons are very important in their subsequent
history, but need not be discussed here. (Elaborate discussions in Hefele, pp. 112 — 129; see also D.C.A.
pp. 127 sq., 1658, 1671, Greenwood, Caih. Fdr. i. 204—208, D.C.B. iii. 662 a, and especially 529 — 531.)
The only legislation, however, to which Athanasius alludes is that establishing a period of 50 years during which
Rome and Alexandria should agree as to the period for Easter {^Fest. Ind. xv. , infr. p. 544, also Hefele
pp. 157 sqq.). The arrangement averted a dispute in 346, but differences occurred in spite of it in 349, 350, 360,
and 368.
The synod addressed an encyclical letter to all Christendom (p. 123), embodying their decisions and
announcing their deposition of eight or nine Oriental bishops (including Theodore of Heraclea, Acacius, and
several Arian leaders) for complicity with Arianism. They also wrote to the Church of Alexandria and to the
bishops of Egypt with special reference to Athanasius and to the Alexandrian Church, to Julius announcing their
decisions, and to the Mareotis (Migne xxvi. 1331 sqq. printed with Letters 46, 47. Hefele ii. 165 questions the
genuineness of all three, but without reason; see p. 554, note i).
The effect of the Council was not at first pacific. Constantius shared the indignation of
the Eastern bishops, and began severe measures against all the Nicene-minded bishops in his
dominions (pp. 275 sqq). Theodulus, Bishop of Trajanople, died of his injuries before
the Sardican Bishops had completed their work. At Hadrianople savage cruelties were
perpetrated (/^.) ; and a close watch was instituted in case Athanasius should attem.pt to return
on the strength of his synodical acquittal. Accordingly, he passed the winter and spring at
7 The statement in the synodal letter of Philippopolis that
Asclepas had been deposed 'seventeen' years before is clearly
corrupt. The true reading may be ' seven '( council of CP. in
336) or xiii, which might easily be changed to XTli (Cf. Hefele,
pp.89. 90).
SEQUEL OF THE COUNCIL OF SARDICA. xlvii
Naissus (now Nish, see Ftst. Ind. xvi.), and during the summer, in obedience to an invitation
from Constans, repaired to Aquileia, where he spent the Easter of 345.
Meanwhile, Constans had made the cause of the Sardican majority his own. At the
beginning of the year 344 he sent two of its most respected members to urge upon Constantius
the propriety of restoring the exiles. Either now or later he hinted that refusal would be
regarded by him as a casus belli. His remonstrance gained unexpected moral support from
an episode, strange even in that age of unprincipled intrigue. In rage and pain at the apparent
success of the envoys, Stephen, Bishop of Antioch, sought to discredit them by a truly
diabolical trick (see p. 276). Its discovery, just after Easter, 344, roused the moral sense
of Constantius. A Council was summoned, and met during the summer ^ (p. 462, § 26,
'three years after ' the Dedication at Midsummer, 341). Stephen was ignominiously deposed
(see Gwatkin 125, note 1), and Leontius, an Arian, but a lover of quiet and a temporiser,
appointed. The Council also re-issued the 'fourth' Antiochene Creed with a very long
explanatory addition, mildly condemning certain Arian phrases, fiercely anathematising
Marcellus and Photinus, and with a side-thrust at supposed impUcations of the Nicene formula.
A deputation M^as sent to Italy, consisting of Eudoxius of Germanicia and three others. They
reached Milan at the Synod of 345, and were able to procure a condemnation of Photinus (not
Marcellus), but on being asked to anathematise Arianism refused, and retired in anger. At
the same Synod of Milan, however, Valens and Ursacius, whose deposition at Sardica was in
imminent danger of being enforced by Constans, followed the former example of Eusebius of
Nicomedia, Maris, Theognis, and Arius himself, by making their submission, which was
followed up two years later by a letter in abject terms addressed to Julius, and another in
a tone of veiled insolence to Athanasius (p. 131). In return, they were able to beat up
a Synod at Sirmium against Photinus (Hil. Frag. ii. 19), but without success in the attempt
to dislodge him.
Meanwhile, Constantius had followed up the Council at Antioch by cancelling his severe
measures against the Nicene party. He restored to Alexandria certain Presbyters whom he
had expelled, and in the course of the summer wrote a public letter to forbid any further
persecution of the Athanasians in that city. This must have been in August, 344, and 'about
ten months later' (p. 277), i.e., on June 26, 345 {F. I. xviii.), Gregory, who had been
in bad health for fully four years, died 9, Constantius, according to his own statement
(pp. 127, 277), had already before the death of Gregory written twice to Athanasius
(from Edessa ; he was at Nisibis on May 12, 345), and had sent a Presbyter to request
him urgently to come and see him with a view to his eventual restoration. As Gregory
was known to be in a dying state, this is quite intelligible, but the language oi Hist. Ar. 21,
which seems to put all all three letters after Gregory's death, cannot stand if we are to accept
the assurance of Constantius. Athanasius, at any rate, hesitated to obey, and stayed on at
Aquileia (344 till early in 346), where he received a third and still more pressing invitation,
promising him immediate restoration. He at once went to Rome to bid farewell to JuHus,
who wrote (p. 128 sq) a most cordial and nobly- worded letter of congratulation for
Athanasius to take home to his Church. Thence he proceeded to Trier to take leave of
Constans (p. 239), and rapidly travelled by way of Hadrianople (p. 276) to Antioch
{p. 240), where he was cordially received ^° by Constantius. His visit was short but
remarkable. Constantius gave him the strongest assurances (pp. 277, 285) of goodwill
for the future, but begged that Athanasius would allow the Arians at Alexandria the use of
a single Church. He replied that he would do so if the Eustathians of Antioch (with whom
alone he communicated during this visit) might have the same privilege. But this Leontius
would not sanction, so the proposal came to nothing (Soc. ii. 23, Soz. iii. 20), and Athanasius
hastened on his way. At Jerusalem he was detained by the welcome of a Council, which
Bishop Maximus had summoned to greet him (p. 130), but on the twenty-first of October
his reception by his flock took place; 'the people, and those in authority, met him a hundred
miles distant ' {Fest. Ind. xviii.), and amid splendid rejoicings (cf. p. xlii., note 3), he entered
Alexandria, to remain there in 'quiet' 'nine years, three months and nireteen days' {Hist.
Aceph. iv., cf. p. 496), viz., from Paophi 24 (Oct. 21), 346, to Mechir 13 (Feb. 8), 356. This
period was his longest undisturbed residence in his see ; he entered upon it in the very
• The ' ten months ' of Hist. Ar. 21, p. 277, are to be reckoned,
not from Easter 344, but from the letters of Const, to Alexandria
some months after.
9 It must be observed that the Index is loose in its statement
here : see Gwatkin, p. 105, Sievers, p. 108. The statement of I Yet see Gwatkin, p. 127, note.
Thdt., &c., that he was murdered is simply due to the usual
confusion of Gregory with George (cf. p. xliii. note 5).
10 This visit cannot have been between May 7 and Aug. 27,
when Const, was at CP. Nor can it well have been before May 7.
We must, therefore, with Sievers, p. no, put it in September.
xlviii PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 7.
prime of life (he was 48 years old), and its internal happiness earns it the title of a golden
decade.
§ 7. The Golden Decade, 346 — 356.
(i). This period is divided into two by the death of Constans in 350, or perhaps more
exactly by the final settlement of sole power in the hands of Constantius on the day of Mursa,.
Sept. 28, 351 '. The internal condition of the Church at Alexandria, however, was not seriously
disturbed even in the second period. From this point of view the entire period may be treated
as one. Its opening was auspicious. Egypt fully participated in the ' profound and wonderful
peace' (p. 278) of the Churches. The Bishops of province after province were sending
in their letters of adhesion to the Synod of Sardica {ib. and p. 127), and those of Egypt
signed to a man.
The public rejoicing of the Alexandrian Church had something of the character of a
' mission ' in modern Church life. A wave of religious enthusiasm passed over the whole
community. ' How many widows and how many orphans, who were before hungry and naked,
now through the great zeal of the people were no longer hungry, and went forth clothed ;' *in
a word, so great was their emulation in virtue, that you would have thought every family and
every house a Church, by reason of the goodness of its inmates and the prayers which were
offered to God' (p. 278). Increased strictness of life, the santification of home, renewed
application to prayer, and practical charity, these were a worthy welcome to their long-lost
pastor. But most conspicuous was the impulse to asceticism. Marriages were renounced and
even dissolved in favour of the monastic life ; the same instincts were at work (but in greater
intensity) as had asserted themselves at the close of the era of the pagan persecutions
(p. 200, §4, yf;z.). Our knowledge of the history of the Egyptian Church under the ten years^
peaceful rule of Athanasius is confined to a few details and to what we can infer from results.
Strong as was the position of Athanasius in Egypt upon his return from exile, his hold upon the country-
grew with each year of the decade. When circumstances set Constantius free to resume the Arian campaign, it
was against Athanasius that he worked ; at first from the remote West, then by attempts to remove or coax him
from Alexandria. But Athanasius was in an impregnable position, and when at last the city was seized by the
coup de main of 356, from his hiding places in Egypt he was more inaccessible still, more secure in his defence,
more free to attack. Now the extraordinary development of Egyptian Monachism must be placed in the first
rank of the causes which strengthened Athanasius in Egypt. The institution was already firmly rooted there
(cf. p. 190), and Pachomius, a slightly older contemporary of Athanasius himself, had converted a sporadic
manifestation of the ascetic impulse into an organised form of Community Life. Pachomius himself had
died on May 9, 346 (infr. p. Ix., note 3, and p. 569, note 3 : cf. Theolog. Literaturztg. 1890, p. 622), but
Athanasius was welcomed soon after his arrival by a deputation from the Society of Tabenne, who also
conveyed a special message from the aged Antony. Athanasius placed himself at the head of the monastic
movement, and we cannot doubt that while he won the enthusiastic devotion of these dogged and ardent Copts,
his influence on the movement tended to restrain extravagances and to correct the morbid exaltation of the
monastic ideal. It is remarkable that the only letters which survive from this decade (pp. 556 — 560) are tO'
monks, and that they both support what has just been said. The army of Egyptian monks was destined to
become a too powerful weapon, a scandal and a danger to the Church : but the monks were the main
secret of the power and ubiquitous activity of Athanasius in his third exile, and that power was above all built up
during the golden decade.
Coupled with the growth of monachism is the transformation of the episcopate. The great power enjoyed
by the Archbishop of Alexandria made it a matter of course that in a prolonged episcopate discordant elements
would gradually vanish and unanimity increase. This was the case under Athanasius : but the unanimity reflected
in the letter ad Afros had practically already come about in the year of the return of Ath. from Aquileia, when
nearly every bishop in Egypt signed the Sardican letter (p. 127 ; the names include the new bishops of 346-7
in Letter 19, with one or two exceptions). Athanasius not infrequently (pp. 559 sq. and Vit. Pack. 72) filled
up vacancies in the episcopate from among the monks, and Serapion of Thmuis, his most trusted suffragan,
remained after his elevation in very close relation with the monasteries.
Athanasius consecrated bishops not only for Egypt, but for the remote Abyssinian kingdom of Auxume as
well. The visit of Frumentius to Alexandria, and his consecration as bishop for Auxume, are referred by
Rufinus i. 9 (Socr. i. 19, &c.) to the beginning of the episcopate of Athanasius. But the chronology of the story
(Gwatkin, pp. 93 sqq., D.C.B. ii. 236 where the argument is faulty) forbids this altogether, while the letter
of Constantius (p. 250) is most natural if the consecration of Frumentius were then a comparatively recent
matter, scarcely intelligible if it had taken place before the ' deposition ' of Athan. by the council of Tyre.
Athanasius had found Egypt distracted by religious dissensions ; but by the time of the third exile we hear very
little of Arian? excepting in Alexandria itself (see p. 564) ; the ' Arians ' of the rest of Egypt were the remnant
of the Meletians, whose monks are still mentioned by Theodoret (cf. p. 299 sq.). An incident which shews
the growing numbers of the Alexandrian Church during this period is the necessity which arose at Easter
in one year of using the unfinished Church of the Csesareum (for its history cf. p. 243, note 6, and Hist.
Aceph. vi., Fest. Ind. xxxvii., xxxviii., xl. ) owing to the vast crowds of worshippers. The Church was a gift of
Constantius, and had been begun by Gregory, and its use before completion and dedication was treated by the
Arians as an act of presumption and disrespect on the part of Athanasius.
' See below.
DEATH OF CONSTANS. COUNCIL OF MILAN. xlix
(2.) But while all was so happy in Egypt, the 'profound peace ' of the rest of the Church
was more apparent than real. The temporary revulsion of feeling on the part of Constantius,
the engrossing urgency of the Persian war, the readiness of Constans to use his formidable
power to secure justice to the Nicene bishops in the East, all these were causes which
compelled peace, while leaving the deeper elements of strife to smoulder untouched. The
riva Idepositions and anathemas of the hostile Councils remained without effect. Valens was in
possession at Mursa, Photinus at Sirmium. Marcellus was, probably, not at Ancyra (Zahn 82);
but the Arians deposed at Sardica were all undisturbed, while Athanasius was more firmlv
established than ever at Alexandria. On the whole, the Episcopate of the East was entirely in
the hands of the reaction — the Nicene element, often large, among the laity was in many
•cases conciliated with difficulty. This is conspicuously the case at Antioch, where the
temporising policy of Leontius managed to retain in communion a powerful body of orthodox
Christians, headed by Diodorus and Flavian, whose energy neutralised the effect of his own
steadily Arian policy (particulars, Gwatkin, pp. 133, sqq., Newman, Ariaris*, p. 455 — from Thdt.
IT. E. ii. 24). The Eustathian schism at Antioch was, apparently, paralleled by a Marcellian
schism at Ancyra, but such cases were decidedly the exception.
Of the mass of instances where the bishops v.'ere not Arian but simply conservative, the Church of Jerusalem
is the type. We have the instructions given to the Catechumens of this city between 348 and 350 by Cyril, who
in the latter year (Hort, p. 92) became laishop, and whose career is typical of the rise and development of so-called
semi-Arianisra. Cyril, like the conservatives generally, is strongly under the influence of Origen (see Caspar! iv.
146-162, and cf. the Catechesis in Heurtley de Fid. et Symb. 62 with the Regula Fidei in Orig. de Princ. i). The
instructions insist strongly on the necessity of scriptural language, and while contradicting the doctrines of Arius
(without mentioning his name ; cf. Athanasius on Marcellus and Photinus in pp. 433— 447) Cyril tacitly protests
against the bixoovnwv as of human contrivance {Cat. v. 12), and uses in preference the words 'like to the Father
according to the Scriptures ' or ' in all things.' This language is that of Athanasius also, especially in his earlier
works (pp. %/ifSqq.), but in the latter phase of the controversy, especially in the Dated Creed of 359, which presents
striking resemblances to Cyril's Catecheses, it became the watchword of the party of reaction. The Church of
Jerusalem then was orthodox substantially, but rejected the Nicene formula, and this was the case in the East
generally, except where the bishops were positively Arian. All were aggrieved at the way in which the Eastern
councils had been treated by the West, and smarted under a sense of defeat (cf. Bright, Introd. to Hist. Tr.,
J), xviii.).
Accordingly the murder of Constans in 350 was the harbinger of renewed religious discord.
For a time the political future was doubtful. Magnentius, knowing what Athanasius had to fear
from Constantius, made a bid for the support of Egypt. Clementius and Valens, two members of
a deputation to Constantius, came round by way of Egypt to ascertain the disposition of the
country, and especially of its Bishop. Athanasius received them with bitter lamentations for
Constans, and, fearing the possibility of an invasion by Magnentius, he called upon his con-
gregation to pray for the Eastern Emperor. The response was immediate and unanimous:
' O Christ, send help to Constantius ' (p. 242). The Emperor had, in fact, sought to secure the
fidelity of Athanasius by a letter (pp. 247, 278), assuring him of his continued support.
And until the defeat of Magnentius at Mursa, he kept his word. That victory, which was as
decisive for Valens as it was for Constantius (Gibbon, ii. 381, iii. 66, ed. Smith), was followed
up by a Council at Sirmium, which successfully ousted the too popular Photinus (cf pp. 280,
298 ; on the appeal of Photinu^, and the debate between him and Basil of Ancyra, ap-
parently in 355, see Gwatkin, pp. 145' j-^., note 6). This was made the occasion for a new
onslaught upon Marcellus in the anathemas appended to a reissue of the 'fourth Antio-
chene ' or PhilippopoHtan Creed (p. 465 ; on the tentative character of these anathemas as
a polemical move, cf Gwatkin, p. 147, note i). The Emperor was occupied for more than
a year with the final suppression of Magnentius (Aug. 10, 353), but 'the first Winter after his
victory, which he spent at Aries, was employed against an enemy more odious to him than the
vanquished tyrant of Gaul' (Gibbon).
It is unnecessary to detail the tedious and unediTying story of the councils of Aries and Milan. The forme''
was a provincial council of Gaul, attended by legates of the Roman see. All present submissively registered the
imperial condemnation of Athanasius. The latter, delayed till 355 by the Rhenish campaign of Constantius, was
due to the request of Liberius, who desired to undo the evil work of his legates, and to the desire of the Emperor
to follow up the verdict of a provincial with that of a more reoresentative Synod. The number of bishops present
was probably very small (the numbers in Socrates ii. 36, Soz. iv. 9, may refer to those who afterwards signed
under compulsion, p. 280, cf. the case of Sardica, p. 127, note 10). The proceedings were a drama in three acts,
first, submission, the legates protesting; secondly, stormy yjrotest, after the arrival of Eusebiusof ^'ercell^e; thirdly,
open coercion. The deposition of Athanasius was proffered to each bishop for signature, and, if he refused,
a sentence of banishment was at once pronounced, the emperor sitting with the ' velum ' drawn, much as though
an English judge were to assume the black cap at the beginning of a capital trial. He cut short argument by
announcing that *he was for the prosecution,' and remonstrance by the sentence ol exile (p. 299); the oirca
iyia 0ov\o:uai tovto Kavwv put into his mouth by Athanasius (p. 281) represents at any rate the spirit of his
VOL. IV. '-^
I PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 7-
proceedings as justly as does ' la tradizione son' io ' that of the autocrat of a more recent council. At this councit
no creed was put forth : until the enemy was dislodged from Alexandria the next step would be premature. But
a band of exiles were sent in strict custody to the East, of some of whom we shall hear later on (pp. 561, 481,
281, cf. p. 256, and the excellent monogi'aph of Kriiger, Lucifer von Calaris, pp. 9 — 23).
Meanwhile, Athanasius had been peacefully pursuing his diocesan duties, but not
without a careful outlook as the clouds gathered on the horizon. The prospect of a revival
of the charges against him moved him to set in order an unanswerable array ot documents,
in proof, firstly of the unanimity, secondly of the good reason, with which he had been<
acquitted of them (see p. 97). He had also, in view of revived assertions of Arianism,
drawn up the two letters or memoranda on the rationale of the Nicene formula and on the
opinion ascribed to his famous predecessor, Dionysius (the Apology was probably written
about 351, the date of the de Deer., and de Sent. Dion.^ falls a little later). In 353 he began to
apprehend danger, from the hopes with which the establishment of Constantius in the
sole possession of the Empire was inspiring his enemies, headed by Valens in the West, and
Acacius of Caesarea in the East. Accordingly, he despatched a powerful deputation to
Constantius, who was then at Milan, headed by Serapion, his most trusted suffragan (cf.
p. 560, note 3 a ; p. 497, §3, copied by Soz. iv. 9; Fcst. Ind. xxv.). The legates sailed
May 19, but on the 23rd Montanus, an officer of the Palace, arrived with an Imperial letter,
declining to receive any legates, but granting an alleged request of Athanasius to be al-
lowed to come to Italy (p. 245 sq.). As he had made no request of the kind, Athanasius
naturally suspected a plot to entice him away from his stronghold. The letter of Constantius
did not convey an absolute command, so Athanasius, protesting his willingness to come when
ordered to do so, resolved to remain where he was for the present. ' All the people were
exceedingly troubled,' according to our chroniclers. ' In this year Montanus was sent against
the bishop, but a tumult having been excited, he retired without effect.' Two years and two
months later, i.e., in July — Aug. 355 (p. 497), force was attempted instead of stratagem,
which the proceedings of Aries had, of course, made useless. ' In this year Diogenes, the
Secretary of the Emperor, came with the intention of seizing the bishop,' 'and Diogenes
pressed hard upon all, trying to dislodge the bishop from the city, and he afflicted all pretty
severely; but on Sept. 43 he pressed sharply, and stormed a Church, and this he did
continually for four months. .. until Dec. 23. But as the people and magistrates vehemently
withstood Diogenes, he returned back without effect on the 23rd of December aforesaid ' {Fest.
Ind. xxvii.. Hist. Aceph. iii.). The fatal blow was clearly imminent. By this time the exiles
had begun to arrive in the East, and rumours came * that not even the powerful and populai
Liberius, not even 'Father' Hosius himself, had been spared. Athanasius might well point
out to Dracontius (p. 558) that in declining the bishopric of the 'country district of Alex-
andria' he was avoiding the post of danger. On the sixth of January the ' Duke ' Syrianus-
arrived in Alexandria, concentrating in the city drafts from all the legions stationed in Egypt
and Libya. Rumour was active as to the intentions of the commandant, and Athanasius felt
justified in asking him whether he came with any orders from the Court. Syrianus replied that
he did not, and Athanasius then produced the letter of Constantius referred to above (written
350 — 351). The magistrates and people joined in the remonstrance, and at last Syrianus
protested ' by the life of Csesar' that he would remain quiet until the matter had been referred
to the Emperor. This restored confidence, and on Thursday night, Feb. 8, Athanasius was
presiding at a crowded service of preparation for a Communion on the following morning
(Friday after Septuagesima) in the Church of Theonas, which with the exception of the
unfinished Caesareum was the largest in the city (p. 243). Suddenly the church was sur-
rounded and the doors broken in, and just after midnight Syrianus and the 'notary' Hilary
' entered with an infinite force of soldiers.' Athanasius (his fullest account is p. 263)
calmly took his seat upon the throne (in the recess of the apse), and ordered the deacon to
begin the 136th psalm, the people responding at each verse 'for His mercy endureth for ever.'
Meanwhile the soldiers crowded up to the chancel, and in spite of entreaties the bishop refused
to escape until the congregation were in safety. He ordered the prayers to proceed, and only
at the last moment a crowd of monks and clergy seized the Archbishop and managed to convey
him in the confusion out of the church in a half-fainting state (protest of Alexandrians, p. 301),
^ \n de Sent. Dion. 23, 24, Arius is spoken of in a way con-
sistent with his being still alive. But the phrise of the Arian
controversy to which the tract relates begins a decade after Arius'
death, and_ we therefore follow the indications which class the
de Sent, with the de Deer.
3 All the following dates are affected by Leap- Year, 355-6, se*
Table C, p_. 501, and correct p. 246, ntite 3, to Jan. 6.
4 Definite information came only after Feb. S, see p. 248.
COMMENCEMENT OF THIRD EXILE. u
but thankful that he had been able to secure the escape of his people before his own
(p. 264). From that moment Athanasius was lost to public view for 'six years and fourteen
days' {Hist. Aceph.. i.e., Mechir 13, 356 — Mechir 27, 362), 'for he remembered that which
was wTitten, Hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast
(pp. 288, 252, 262). Constantius and the Arians had planned their blow with skill and
delivered it with decisive effect. But they had won a ' Cadmean Victory.'
§ 8. The Third Exile, 356 — 362.
The third exile of Athanasius marks the summit of his achievement. Its commencement
is the triumph, its conclusion the collapse of Arianism. It is true that after the death of
Constantius the battle went on with variations of fortune for twenty years, mostly under the
reign of an ardently Arian Emperor (364 — 378). But by 362 the utter lack of inner coherence
in the Arian ranks was manifest to all ; the issue of the fight might be postponed by circum-
stances but could not be in doubt. The break-up of the Arian power was due to its own lack
of reality: as soon as it had a free hand, it began to go to pieces. But the watchful eye of
Athanasius followed each step in the process from his hiding-place, and the event was greatly
due to his powerful personality and ready pen, knowing whom to overwhelm and whom to
conciliate, where to strike and where to spare. This period then of forced abstention from
affairs was the most stirring in spiritual and literary activity in the whole life of Athanasius.
It produced more than half of the treatises which fill this volume, and more than half of his
entire extant works. With this we shall have to deal presently ; but let it be noted once for
all how completely the amazing power wielded by the wandering fugitive was based upon the
devoted fidelity of Egypt to its pastor. Towns and villages, deserts and monasteries, the very
tombs were scoured by the Imperial inquisitors in the search for Athanasius; but all in vain;
not once do we hear of any suspicion of betrayal. The work of the golden decade was bearing
its fruit.
(i.) On leaving the church of Theonas, Athanasius appears to have made his escape from
the city. If for once we may hazard a conjecture, the numerous cells of the Nitrian desert
offered a not too distant but fairly inpenetrable refuge. He must at any rate have selected a
place where he could gain time to reflect on the situation, and above all ensure that he should
be kept well informed of events from time to time. For in Athanasius we never see the panic-
stricken outlaw; he is always the general meditating his next movement and full of the
prospects of his cause. He made up his mind to appeal to Constantius in person. He could
not believe that an Emperor would go back upon his solemn pledges, especially such a voluntary
assurance as he had received after the death of Constans. Accordingly he drew up a carefully
elaborated defence {Ap. Const. 1 — 26) dealing with the four principal charges against him, and set
off through the Libyan ^° desert with the intention of crossing to Italy and finding Constantius
at Milan. But while he was on his way, he encountered rumours confirming the reports of the
wholesale banishment not only of the recalcitrants of Milan, but of Liberius of Rome and the
great Hosius of Spain. Next came the news of the severe measures against Egyptian bishops,
and of the banishment of sixteen of their number, coupled with the violence practised by the
troops at Alexandria on Easter Day (p. 248 sq.) ; however, his journey was continued, until he
received copies of letters from the Emperor, one denouncing him to the Alexandrians and
recommending a new bishop, one George, as their future guide, the other summoning the
princes of Auxumis to send Frumentius {supr. p. xlviii.) to Egypt in order that he might unlearn
what he had been taught by ' the most wicked Athanasius ' and receive instruction from the
'venerable George.' These letters, which shew how completely the pursuers were off the scent
(p. 249), convinced Athanasius that a personal interview was out of the question. He returned
• into the desert,' and at leisure completed his apology (pp. 249 — 253), with the view partly of
possible future delivery, partly no doubt of hterary circulation. Before turning back, how-
ever, he appears to have drawn up his letter to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, warning
them against the formula (see p. 222) which was being tendered for their subscription, and
encouraging them to endure persecution, which had already begun at least in Libya {Ep. yEg.) ;
the designation of George (§ 7) was already known, but he had not arrived, nor had Secundus
(19) reappeared in Egypt, at any rate not in Libya (he was there in Lent, 357, p. 294).
The letter to the bishops, then, must have been written about Easter, 356 ; not long alter.
'0 The envoys of Magnentius had come from Italy through
Libya, in 350 — 351. The ' desert ' (Apol. Const. 27, 32) must
be the region between Al.xa. and Cyrenaica, not Palestine as
Tillem. viii. 186, infers from Ep. Aig. 5. There is no evidence
that Ath. left his province during this exile, and Palestine was
d 2
a most dangerous territory to venture into. The cautious vague-
ness of his language, Ep. .^Eg. 5, while it baffles even our
curiosity, yet favours the hypothesis that the events referred to
belong to the Egyptian persecution.
lii
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 8 (i>
because it contains no details of the persecution in Egypt ; not before, for the persecution had
already begun, and Athanasius was ah-eadyin Cyrenaica, whence he turned back not earlier than
April (to allow time for Constantius (i) to hear that Athanasius was thought to have fled to.
Ethiopia, (2) to write to Egypt, (3) for copies of the letter to overtake Athanasius on his way to
Italy. Constantius was at Milan Jan. — April).
Meanwhile in Alexandria disorders had continued. The ' duke ' appears to have been either unable
for a tinae, or to have thought it needless, to take possession of the churches ; but we hear of a violent dispersion
of worshippers from the neighbourhood of the cemetery on Easter Day (p. 249, cf. the Virgins after Syrianus
but before Heraclius, p. 288) ; while throughout Egypt subscription to an Arianising formula was being
enforced on the bishops under pain of expulsion. After Easter, a change of governor took place, Maximus
cf Nicsea (pp. 301 sqq., 247) being succeeded by Cataphronius, who reached Alexandria on the loth of June
{Hist. Aceph. iv.). lie was accompanied by a Count Heraclius, who brought a letter from Constantius threaten-
ing the heathen with severe measures (pp. 288, 290), unless active hostilities against the Athanasian party were
begun (this letter was not the one given p. 249; Ath. rightly remarks 'it reflected great discredit upon the
writer'). Heraclius announced that by Imperial order the Churches were to be given up to the Arians, and
compelled all the magistrates, including the functionaries of heathen temples, to sign an undertaking to
execute the Imperial incitements to persecution, and to agree to receive as Bishop the Emperor's nominee. These
incredible jnecautions shew the general esteem for Athanasius even outside the Church, and the misgivings felt
at Court as to the reception of the new bishop. The Gentiles reluctantly agreed, and the next acts of violence
were carried out with their aid, 'or rather with that of the more abandoned among them' (p. 291). On the
fourth day from the arrival of Cataphronius, that is in the early hours of Thursday, June 13, after a service (which
had begun overnight, pp. 290, 2567?;;., Hist. Aceph. v.), just as all the congregation except a few women had
left, the church of Theonas was stormed and violences perpetrated which left far behind anything that Syrianus
had done. Women were murdered, the church wrecked and polluted with the very worst orgies of heathenism,
houses and even tombs were ransacked throughout the city and suburbs on pretence of ' seeking for Athanasius.'
Sebastian the Manichee, who about this time succeeded to the military command of Syrianus, appears to have
carried on these outrages with the utmost zest (yet see Hist. Ar. 60). Many more bishops were driven into exile
(compare the twenty-six of p. 297 with the ' sixteen ' p. 248, but some may belong to a still later period,
see p. 257), and the Arian bishops and clergy installed, including the bitterly vindictive Secundus in Libya
(p. 257). The formal transfer of churches at Alexandria took place on Saturday, June 15 [infr., p. 290,
note 9): the anniversary of Eutychius (p. 292) was kept at Alexandria on July 11, (Martyrol. Vetust. Ed.
1668). After a further delay of 'eight months and eleven days' George, the new bishop, made his appear-
ance (Feb. 24, 357'', third Friday in Lent). His previous career" and character '3 were strange qualifications
for the second bishopric in Christendom. He had been a pork-contractor at Constantinople, and according
to his many enemies a fraudulent one; he had amassed considerable wealth, and was a zealous Arian. His
violent temper perhaps recommended him as a man likely to crush the opposition that was expected. The
history of his episcopate may be briefly disposed of here. He entered upon his See in Lent, 357, with an armed
force. At Easter he renewed tlie violent persecution of bishops, clergy, virgins, and lay people. In the week
II This date, coming from the comnion source of the Historia
Acephata and Festal Index (^\.e.. from the accredited Alexandrian
chronology of the period), niust be accepted unless there is cogent
proof of its incorrectness. No such proof is offered : we have
no positive statement to the contrary, but only (i) the fact that
the intrusion of George is related, Apol. Fug. 6, immediately after
an attack on the great church, possibly the coup de main of
Syrianus, but more probably that of p. 290, note 9, without any hint
of a long interval. This is true, and if there were no evidence
the other ■way might justify a g-uess that George came in Lent,
356 ; but no one would claim that the passage is conclusive by
itself; (2) the 'improbability' of George delaying his arrival so
long. Improbability is a relative term ; we know too little of
George's consecration or movements to justify its use in the
present connection. All the evidence goes to shew that the court
party were far from sanguine as to the nature of his reception,
and that their misgivings were well-founded. The above con-
siderations look very small when we compare them with the mass
of positive evidence the other way. (i.) The civil Governor had
changed : Maximus held the post on Feb. 8, 3^6 (Hist. Ar. 81, &c.),
Cataphronius when the churches were transferred to the party of
George, see below, 6. (2.) The military Commander had changed :
Syrianus was replaced by Sebastian, who appears just after the
transfer of churches. Hist. Ar. 55 — 60 (Dr. Bright in D.C.B. i.
194, note, seems to admit that Sebastian belongs to a later date
than the Lent of 356). (3.) The Wednesday (and Thursday) of
Hist. Ar. 55 were not 'in Lent.' They suit the data of //ist.
Aceph. perfectly well. (4.) Had George arrived before Easter
356, Athan. would have heard of it 'in the Desert,' Apol. Const.
c7 ; but he has only heard of his nomination loi/onacrflij 28, pro-
bably from the letters given in §§ 30, 31). (5.) The Letter to the
Egyptian bishops was written from Libya or Cyrenaica, when
the coercion of the episcopate had begun : it postulates some time
since his e.\pulsion, but George was then (§ 7) only in contempla-
tion, (6.) There is no evidence that the coup de main of Syrianus
was other than unpopular in the city. This was reported to
Const-, who after the (Easter) outrages on the Virgins (Ap. Const.
■2.-j\ Hist. Ar. 48). and after the expulsion of the sixteen bishops
(Hist. Ar 54, this was probably about Easter, Ap. Const. 27)
sent Heraclius (with the ' discreditable ' letter), in whose cotnpany
(Hist. Ar. 55) the >tew P7-e/ect Cataphronius first appears.
This let loose the refuse of the heathen population as described,
ih. 55 — 60. (7.) Here the precise statement of the Hist. Aceph.
fits in exactly. The Presbyters and people of Ath. remained
in possession of the Churches until the arrival of the new Prefect,
with Count Heraclius. on June 10. (8.) Heraclius is expressly
called the precursor of George (p. 28H), and is evidently sent to
disarm the reported hostility of the (even heathen) public to
the appointment. It may be added that if we are to take 'pro-
babilities ' into account, it is easier to imagine a reason for a court
nominee like George having been slow to take up a dangerous
post, than for the Alexandrian chronologists of the day having
invented a year's interval when none had existed. Montfaucon
had already noticed that ' a good deal must have happened ' be-
tween the irruption of Syrianus and the entry of George. The
data of Athanasius are for the first time clearly explained by the
light thrown on them by the chroniclers. I should also have
urged the fact that the commemoration of George's Pentecost
Martyrs on May 21 in the Roman Martyrology suits 357 and not
356, had I succeeded in tracing the history of the entry, which
has, however, so far eluded my efforts.
12 We are quite in the dark as to when, and by whom, George
was consecrated bishop. The statement of Sozomen iv. 8, that
he was ordained by a council of thirty bishops at Antioch, in-
cluding Theodore of Heraclea, who had died before the exile
of Liberius in 355 (Thdt. H.E. ii. 16, p. 93. 13), is involved in
too hopeless a tangle of anachronisms to be of any value for our
enquny. But that George was ordained in Antioch is in itself
likely enough, and if so, his ordination would probably follow
close upon the expul.sion of Athanasius. But the repeated as-
surances of Ath. that George came fro-m court would imply that
after his ordination George went to Italy. That at oace puts
his arrival in Alxa. in Lent 356 out of the question.
13 The statements of Ath. as to George are made at second-
hand, and must be taken cum grano. He is ' notoriously wealthy,'
yet 'hired' by the Arians. (Cf. p. 249 ; but apparently he
combined wealth and avarice.) That he was ' a heathen ' is
certainly untrue. His ' ignorance ' is equally so : we know that
he was a well-read man and possessed a remarkably good library
(D.C.B. ii. 638). That he had 'the temper of a hangman'
(p. 227) is in keeping with all that we know of him, and as
to his general character, the statements of Athanasius and other
churchmen are not stronger than Amm. Marcell. XXII. xi. 4 (cf.
Gibbon, iii. 171 sgq., ed. Smith, but correct his jeu d'esprit on
'S.George and the Dragon' by Bright, in D.C.B. itbi supra;
yet see Stanley, Eastern Church, Lect. vii. III.).
THIRD EXILE. STATE OF PARTIES.
liii
alter Pentecost he let loose the cruel commandant Sebastian against a number of persons who were worshipping'
at the cemetery instead of communicating with himself; many were killed, and many more banished. The
■expulsion of bishops ('over thirty,' p. 257, cf. other reff. above) was continued (the various data of Ath. are not
easy to reconcile, the first 16 of p. 257 may be the 'sixteen' of p. 248, before Easter, 356 : we miss the name of
Serapion in all the lists !) Theodore, Bishop of Oxyrynchus, the largest town of middle Egypt, upon submitting
to George, was compelled by him to submit to reordination. The people refused to have anything more
to do with him, and did without a bishop for a long time, until they obtained a pastor in one Heraclides,
who is said to have become a ' Luciferian.' (Cf. Lib. Prec, and Le Quien ii. p. 578.) Geo.-ge carried on his
tyranny eighteen months, till Aug. 29, 358. His fierce insults against Pagan worship were accompanied by the
meanest and most oppressive rapacity. At last the populace, exasperated by his 'adder's bites' (Ammian. ),
attacked him, and he was rescued with difficulty. On Oct. 2 he left the town, and the party of Athanasius
•expelled his followers from the churches on Oct. Ii, but on Dec. 24, Sebastian came in from the country and
restored the churches to the people of George. On June 23, 359, ' the notary Paul ' (' in complicandis calum-
niarum nexibus artifex dirus, unde ei Catencs inditum est cognomeutum,' Ammian. Marc. XIV. v., XV. iii.), the
Jeffreys of the day, held a commission of blood, and 'vindictively punished many'-*.' George was at this time
busy with the councils of Seleucia and Constantinople (he was not actually present at the latter, Thdt. H. E. ii. 28),
and was in no hurry to return. At last, just after the death of Constantius, he ventured back, Nov. 26, 361,
but on the proclamation of Julian on Nov. 30 was seized by the populace and thrown into chains ; on Dec. 24,
* impatient of the tedious forms of judicial proceedings, ' the people dragged him from prison and lynched him
with the utmost ignominy.
Athanasius meanwhile eluded all search. During part of the year 357 — 358 he was in
concealment in Alexandria itself, and he was supposed to be there two years later ( Fest. Ind.
XXX., xxxii. ; the latter gives some colour to the tale of Palladius — cf. Soz. v, 6 — of his having
during part of this period remained concealed in the house of a Virgin of the church), but the
greater part of his time was undoubtedly spent in the numberless cells of Upper and Lower
Egypt, where he was secure of close concealment, and of loyal and efficient messengers to warn
him of danger, keep him informed of events, and carry his letters and writings far and wide.
The tale of Rufinus (i. 18) that he lay hid all the six years in a dry cistern is probably
a confused version of this general fact. The tombs of kings and private persons were at this
time the common abode of monks (cf p. 564, note i ; also Socr. iv. 13, a similar mistake).
Probably we must place the composition of the Life of Antony, the great classic ofMonas-
ticism, at some date during this exile, although the question is surrounded with difficulties (see
pp. 188 sqq?}. The importance of the period, however, lies in the march of events outside Egypt.
(For a brilliant sketch of the desert life of Athanasius see D.C.B. i. 194 j-^.; also Bright,
Mist. Treatises, p. Ixxiv. sq)
(2.) With the accession of Constantius to sole power, the anti-Nicene reaction at last had
a free hand throughout the Empire. Of what elements did it now consist ? The original
reaction was conservative in its numerical strength, Arian in its motive power. The stream
was derived from the two fountain heads of Paul of Samosata, the ancestor of Arius, and of
Origen the founder of the theology of the Eastern Church generally and especially of that of Euse-
bius of Csesarea. Flowing from such heterogeneous sources, the two currents never thoroughly
mingled. Common action, dictated on the one hand by dread of Sabellianism, manipulated
on the other hand by wire-pullers in the interest of Arianism, united the East till after the
death of Constantine in the campaign against the leaders of Nicsea. Then for the last ten years
•of the life of Constans, Arianism, or rather the Reaction, had its ' stationary period ' (Newman).
The chaos of creeds at the Council of Antioch (supr. p. xliv.) shewed the presence of discordant
aims; but opposition to Western interference, and the urgent panic of Photinus and his master,
kept them together : the lead was still taken by the Arianisers, as is shewn by the continued
prominence of the fourth Antiochene Creed at Philippopolis (343), Antioch (344), and Sirmium
(351). But the second or Lucianic Creed was on record as the protest of the conservative
majority, and was not forgotten. Yet until after 351, when Photinus was finally got rid of and
Constantius master of the world, the reaction was still embodied in a fairly compact and
united party. But now the latent heterogeneity of the reaction began to make itself felt
Differing in source and motive, the two main currents made in different directions. The
influence of Aristotle and Paul and Lucian set steadily toward a harder and more consistent
Arianism, that of Plato and the Origenists toward an understanding with the Nicenes.
(a.) The original Arians, now gradually dying out, were all tainted with compromise and political sub-
serviency. Arius, Asterius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the rest (Secundus and Theonas are the solitary
exception), were all at one time or another, and in difierent degrees, willing to make concessions and veil their
more objectionable tenets under some evasive confession. But in many cases temporary humiliation produced its
natural result in subsequent uncompromising defiance. This is exemplified in the history of Valens and
14 p. 497. George was at Sirmium in the Spring ot 359 (Soz.
iy. 16). Paul Catena came to Alxa. from a similar commission at
Scythopolis. He was apparently aided in both places by Modestiis
the Comes Orientis. From Liban. Ep. 205, we gather, to the
credit of George, that he was the intermediary of requests for
mitigation o> some of the sentences. He was at this time at
Antioch, from whence also ' Ex Comitatu Principis,' Amm. XXH.
xi., he returned to Alxa. in 361, evidently beiore he had heard
of the Emperor's death. (Sievers, pp. 138 sq.)
liv
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 8 (2).
Ursacius after 351. Valens, especially, figures as the head of a new party of ' Anomceans' or ullra-Arians..
The rise ot this party is associated with the name of Aetius, its after-history with that of his pupil Eunoniius,
bishop of Cyzicus from 361. It was marked by a genuine scorn for the compromises of earlier Arianism, fron\
which it differed in nothing except its more resolute sincerity. The career of .Aetius (D.C.B. i. 50, sqq.) was that
of a struggling, self-made, self-confident man. A pupil of the Lucianists {supr,, p. xxviii.), lie shrunk from none of
the irreverent conclusions of Arianism. His loud voice and clear-cut logic lost none of their effect by fear of
offending the religious sensibilities of others. In 350 Leontius ordained him deacon, with a licence to preach, at
Antioch ; but Flavian and Diodorus (see above, §7) raised such a storm that the cautious bishop felt obliged to-
suspend him. On the appointment of George he was invited to Alexandria, whither Eunomius was attracted by
his fame as a teacher. His influence gradually spread, and he found many kindred spirits among the bishops.
The survivors of tlie original Arians were with him at heart, as also were men like Eudoxius, bishop of German-
icia (of Antioch, 358, of CP. 360), who fell as far behind Aetius in sincerity as he surpassed him in profanity j.
the Anomceans (avAfxoios) were numerically strong, and morally even more so ; they were the wedge which
eventually broke up the reactionary mass, rousing the sinc^e horror of the Conservatives, commanding the
someiimes dissembled but always real sympathy of the true Arians, and seriously embarrassing the political
Arians, whose one aim was to keep their party together by disguising differences of principle under some con-
venient phrase.
{(>.) This latter party were headed by Acacius in the East and in the West by Valens, who while in reality,
as stated above, making play for the Anomcean cause, was diplomatist enough to use the influential ' party of no-
principle' as his instrument for the purpose. Valens during the whole period of the sole reign of Constantius
(and in fact until his own death about 375) was the heart and soul of the new and last phase of Arianism, namely
oi the formal attempt to impose an Avian creed upon the Church in lieu of that of Nicaea. But this could only be
done by skilful u^e of less extreme men, and in the trickery and statecraft necessary for such a purpose Valens was
facile prince ps. His main supporter in the East was ACACIUS, who had succeeded to the bishoprick, the library,
and the doctrinal position of his preceptor Eusebius of Csesarea. The latter, as we saw (p. xxvii. note 5), represented
' the extreme left ' of the conservative reaction, meeting tiie right wing, or rather the extreme concessions, of pure
Arianism as represented by its official advocate Asterius, whom in fact Eusebius had defended against the
onslaught of Marcellus. In so far then as the stream of pure Arianism could be mingled with the waters of
Conservatism, Acacius was the channel in which they joined. Eusebius had not been an Arian, neither was-
Acacius ; Eusebius had theological convictions, but lacked clearness of perception, Acacius was a clear-headed
man but without convictions ; Eusebius was substantially conservative in his theology, but tainted with political
Arianism ; Acacius was a political Arian first, and anything you please afterwards. On the whole, his sympathies
seem to have been conservative, but he manifests a rooted dislike of principle of any kind. He appoints orthodox
bishops (Philost. v. l), but quarrels with them as soon as he encounters their true mettle, Cyril in 358, Meletius
in 361 ; he befriends Arians, but betrays the too honest Aetius in 360. His ecclesiastical career begins with the
council of four creeds in 341 ; in controversy with Marcellus he developed the concessions of .\sterius till
he almost reached the Nicene standard ; he hailed effusively the Anoinoean Creed of Valens in 358 (Soz. iv. I2)„
and in 359"6o forced that of Nike in its amended form upon the Eastern Church far and wide. He is next heard
of, signing the 'Oixoohmov, in 363, and lastly (Socr. iv. 2) under Valens is named again along with Eudoxius.
The real opinions of a man with such a record are naturally not easy to determine, but we may be sure
that he was in thorough sympathy with the policy of Constantius, namely the union of all parties in the Church
on the basis of subserviency to the State.
The difficulty was to find a formula. The test of Nicasa could not be superseded without putting something
in its place, which should i«clude Arianism as effectually as the other had excluded it. Such a test was eventually
(after 357) found in the word ouotos's. Jt was a word with a good Catholic history. We find it used freely by
Athanasius in his earlier anti-Arian writings, and it was thoroughly current in conservative theology, as for example
in Cyril's Catecheses (he has ufj-oiou Kara Tas ypa<pis and opLoiov Kara iravTa). It would therefore permit even the
full Nicene belief. On the other hand many of the more earnest conservative theologians had begun to reflect or.
what was involved in the ' likeness ' of the Son to the Father, and had formulated the conviction that this
likeness was essential, not, as the Arians held, acquired. This was in fact a fair inference from the ovalas
ai^apdWuKTop i'lKuya of the Dedication Creed. This question made an agreement between men like Valens and
Basil tlifificult, but it could be evaded by keeping to the simple ofj-oiOf, and deprecating non-scriptural precision.
Lastly, there were the Anomoeans to be considered. Now the iimoior had the specious appearance of flatly
contradicting this rep^dlent avowal of the extremists; but to Valens and his friends it had tlie substantial recom-
mendation of admitting it in reality. ' Likeness ' is a relative term. If two things are only ' like ' they are ipsO'
facto to some extent unlike ; the two words are not contradictories but correlatives, and if the likeness is not
essential, the unlikeness is. So far then as the ' Homoean ' party rested on any doctrinal principle at all,
that principle was the principle of Arius ; and that is how Valens forwarded the Anomcean cause by putting him-
self at the head of the Homneans. His plan of campaign had steadily matured. The deposition of Photinus in
351 had sounded the note of war, Aries and Milan (353-5) and the expulsion of Athanasius (356) had cleared tlie
field of opponents, George was now in possession at Alexandria, and in the summer of 357 the triumph of
Arianism was proclaimed. A small council of bishops met at Sinnium and published a Latin Creed, insisting
strongly (i) on the unique Godhead of the Father, (2) on the subjection of the Son 'along with all things
subjected to Him by the Father,' and (3) strictly proscribing the terms utxoovaLov, dfj-oioiKTiov, and all discussion
of ovaiu, as unsciiptural and inscrutable.
This manifesto was none the less Anomcean for not explicitly avowing the obnoxious phrase. It forbids the
definition of the ' likeness ' as essential, and does not even condescend to use the ofioiov at all. The
Nicene definition is for the first time overtly and bluntly denounced, and the ' conservatives ' are commanded to
hold their peace. The ' Sirmium blasphemy ' was indeed a trumpet-blast of defiance. The echo came back from
the Homoeans assembled at Antioch, whence Eudoxius the new bishop, Acacius, and their friends addressed the
»S We cannot fix the date when this word was first adopted
as a shibboleth. It occurs, but not conspicuously, in the ' Macros-
tich'ol 344, but not in any other creed till the 'dated' symbol
of 359. I3ut if (as Kriiger, Luci/., p. 42, note, assumes) the ofioiou-
viov was adopted as a protest against the bald 6/ioioi', the latter
must have been current long be/ore 357, when the former was
proscnoed. 1 incline 10 regard ihe 6fj.oi.Qv (as a test word) as
a later rival to the o^oiouo-ioi/.
THIRD EXILE. RISE OF THE SEMI-ARIANS.
Iv
Pannonians with a letter of thanks. But the blast heralded the collapse of the Arian cause ; the Reaction 'fell
to pieces the moment Arianism ventured to have a policy of its own' (Gwatkin, p. 158, the whole account should
be consulted). Not only did orthodox Gaul, under Phoebadius of Ajjen, the most stalwart of the lesser men whom
Milan had spared, meet in synod and condemn the blasphemy, but the conservative East was up in arms ar-ainst
Arianism, for the first time with thorough spontaneity. Times were changed indeed ; the East was at war with
the West, but on the side of orthodoxy against Arianism.
(c) We must now take account of the party headed by Basil of Ancyra and usually
(since Epiphanius), but with some injustice, designated as Semi-Arians. Their theological
ancestry and antecedents have been already sketched (pp. xxvii., xxxv.) ; they are the representa-
tives of that conservatism, moulded by the neo-Asiatic, or modified Origenist tradition, which
warmly condemned Arianism at Nicsea, but acquiesced with only half a heart in the test by
which the Council resolved to exclude it. They furnished, the numerical strength, the material
basis so to call it, of the anti-Nicene reaction ; but the reaction on their part had not been
Arian in principle, but in part anti-Sabellian, in part the empirical conservatism of men whose
own principles are vague and ill-assorted, and who fail to follow the keener sight which
distinguishes the higher conservatism from the lower. They lent themselves to the purposes of
the Eusebians (a name which ought to be dropped after 342) on purely negative grounds and in
view of questions of personal rights and accusations. A positive doctrinal formula they did
not possess. But in the course of years reflexion did its work. A younger generation grew
up who had not been taught to respect Nicaea, nor yet had imbibed Arian principles. Cyril at
Jerusalem, Meletius at Antioch, are specimens of a large class. The Dedication Creed at
Antioch represents an early stage in the growth of this body of conviction, conviction not
absolutely uniform everywhere, as the result shews, but still with a distinct tendency to settle
down to a formal position with regard to the great question of the age. There was nothing in
the Nicene doctrine that men like this did not hold : but the word ofiooxjcriov opened the door to
the dreaded Sabellian error : was not the history of Marcellus and Photinus a significant
comment upon it ? But \i oiaia meant not individuality, but specific identity {supr., p. xxxi. sq.)
even this term might be innocently admitted. But to make that meaning plain, what was more
effective than the insertion of an iota ? 'OfMoiovaios, then, was the satisfactory test which would
banish Arius and Marcellus alike. Who first used the word for the purpose, we do not know,
but its first occurrence is its prohibition in the ' blasphemv ' of Valens in 357. The leader of
the ' semi-Arians ' in 357 was Basil of Ancyra, a man of deep learning and high character.
George of Laodicea, an original Arian, was in active but short-lived ^^ alliance with the party,
other prominent members of it were Eustathius, Bishop of Sebaste (Sivas), Eleusius of Cyzicus,
Macedonius of Constantinople, Eusebius of Emesa, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Mark of Arethusa,
a high-minded but violent man, who represents the ' left ' wing of the party as Cyril and Basil
represent the ' right.'
Now the ' trumpet-blast ' of Valens gave birth to the ' Semi-Arians ' as a formal party.
An attempt was made to reunite the reaction on a Homoean basis in 359, but the events of
that year made the breach more open than ever. The tendency towards the Nicene position
which received its impulse in 357 continued unchecked until the Nicene cause triumphed in
Asia in the hands of the ' conservatives ' of the next generation.
Immediately after the Acacian Synod at Antioch early in 358, George of Laodicea, who had reasons of his own
for indignation against Eudoxius, wrote off in hot haste to warn Basil of the fearful encouragement that was being
given to the doctrines of Aetius in that city. Basil, who was in communication (through Hilary) with Phcebadius
and his colleagues, had invited twelve neighbouring bishops to the dedication of a church in Ancyra at this time,
and took the opportunity of drawing up a synodical letter insisting on the Essential Likeness of the Son to
the Father (ofiowv hut' oi/aiav), and eighteen anathemas directed against Marcellus and the Anomceans. (The
censure of 6fjioov(riov il raur oovn lof is against the Marcellian sense of the o/xoovaiov). Basil, Eustathius, and
Eleusius then proceeded to the Court at Sirmium and were successful in gaining the ear of the Emperor, who at
this time had a high regard for Basil, and apparently obtained the ratification by a council, at which Valens, &c.,
were present, of a composite formula of their own (Newman's 'semi- Arian digest of three Confessions') which was
also signed by Liberius, who was thereupon sent back to Rome. (Soz. iv. 15 is our only authority here, and his
account of the formula is not very clear : he seems to mean that two, not three, confessions were combined. (Cf.
p. 449, note 4.) On the whole, it is most probable that the ' fourth' Antiochene formula in its Sirmian recen-
sion of 351 is intended, perhaps with the addition of twelve of the Ancyrene anathemas. (The question of the
signatures of Liberius need not detain us.) The party of Valens were involved in sudden and unlooked-for
discomfiture. Basil even succeeded in obtaining a decree of banishment against Eudoxius, Aetius, and ' seventy '
others (Philost. iv. 8). But an Arian deputation from Syria procured their recall, and all parties stood at bay in
mutual bitterness.
Now was the opportunity of Valens. He saw the capabilities of the Homoean compromise, as yet embodied
in no creed, and resolved to try it : and his experiment was not unsuccessful. All parties alike seem to have agreed
'6 Apparently it began with the quarrel over the election to the
bishopric of Antioch, which Eudoxius managed to seize after the
death o! Leontius. George was aggrieved at his rights as an
elector being iy;nored, and may have had hopes of the see fof
himself. See Soz. iv. 13 ; but Philost. iv. 5 with much less likeli-
hood puts this down to Basil.
Ivi
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 8 (2).
upon the necessity for a council of the whole Church (on the origin of the proposal, and for other details, seep. 448).
But Valens was determined what the result of the council must be. Accordingly he prevailed on the Emperor to
divide it, the Western Synod to meet at Ariminum, the Eastern at ' Rocky Seleucia,' a mountain fortress
in Cilicia where there happened to be plenty of troops. The management of the latter was entrusted to Acacius ;
at Rimini Valens would be present in person. In event of the two synods differing, a delegation of ten bishops
from each was to meet at Court and settle the matter. The Creed to be adopted had also to be arranged before-
hand, and for this purpose, to his great discredit, Basil of Ancyra entered into a conference (along with Mark of
Arethusa and certain colleagues) with Valens, George of Alexandria, and others of like mind. The result was the
' Dated Creed ' (May 22, 359) drawn by Mark, prohibiting the word ovaia (in a gentler tone than that of the creed
ofValens in 357), but containing the definition o/uoior Kara iravTa (' as also the Scriptures teach,' see above, on
Cyril, p. xlix.), words which Valens and Ursacius sought to suppress. But Constantius insisted on their re-
tention, and Basil emphasised his subscription by a strongly- worded addition. Moreover in conjunction with
George of Laodicea he drew up a memorandum (Epiph. 72. 12 — 22) vindicating the term ovaia as implied in
Scriptuio, insisting on the absolute essentiaWikeness of the Son to the Father, except in respect of the Incarnation,
and repudiating the idea that ayeyuTiaia is the essential notion of Godhead. Such a protest was highly significant
as an approach to the Nicene position, but Basil must have felt its inefficiency for the purpose in hand. Had the
creed been anything but a surrender of principle on his part, no explanatory memoranda would have been
needed.
After ihe^asco of the Dated Creed, the issue of the Councils was not doubtful. The details may be reserved
for another place (pp. 448, 453 sgg.), but the general result is noteworthy. At both Councils the court party
were in a minority, and in both alike they eventually had their way. (See Bright, His/. Tr. Ixxxiv. — xc. , and
Gwatkin, 170 — 180.) On the whole the Seleucian synod came out of the affair more honourably than the other,
as their eventual surrender was confined to their delegates. Both Councils began bravely. The majorities
deposed their opponents and affirmed their own faith, the Westerns that of Nicaea, the Easterns that of the
Dedication. From both Councils deputations from each rival section went to the Emperor, who was now at
Constantinople. The deputies from the majority at Ariminum, where the meeting had begun fully two months
before the other, were not received, but detained first at Hadrianople, then at Nike in Thrace (chosen, says
Socr. ii. 37, to impose on the world by the name), where they were induced to sign a recension of the Dated
Creed (the Creed itself had been revoked and recast without the date and perhaps without the Kara iravra before
the preliminary meeting at Sirmium broke up, p. 466) of a more distinctly Homcean character. Armed with this
document Valens brought them back to the Council, and 'by threats and cajolery ' obtained the signatures of
nearly all the bishops. Yet the stalwart Phoebadius, Claudius of Picenum, the venerable African Muzonius,
father of the Council, and a few others, were undaunted. But Valens, by adroit dissimulation and by guiding
into a manageable shape the successive anathematisms by which his orthodoxy was tested, managed to deceive
these simple-minded Westerns, and with applause and exultation, 'plausu quodam et tripudio' (Jer.), amidst
which ' Valens was lauded to the skies ' ( !), the bishops were released from their wearisome detention and
suspense. But Valens ' cum recessisset tunc gloriabatur ' (Prov, xx. 14). The Western bishops realised too late
what they had done, ' Ingemuit totus orbis, etse Arianum esse miratus est.' Valens hurried with the creed and
the anathemas of Phoebadius to Constantinople, where he found the Seleucian deputies in hot discussion at court.
The Eastern bishops at Seleucia had held to the 'Lucianic' creed, and contemptuously set aside not only the
Acacian alternative (p. 466), but the whole compromise of Basil and Mark at the Sirmian conference of the
preceding May. The ' Conservatives ' and Acacians were at open war. But the change of the seat of war to
the court gave the latter the advantage, and Valens and Acacius were determined to secure their position at any
cost. The first step was to compel the signature of the ' semi-Arian ' deputies to the creed of Ariminum. This
was facilitated by the renewal on the part of Acacius and Valens of their repudiation, already announced at
Seleucia (p. 466), of the 'A.v6iJ.oiov, (of course with the mental reservation that the repudiation referred only to
will). Even so, tedious discussions '?, and the threats of Constantius, with whom Basil had now lost all his
influence (Tiidt. ii. 27), were needed to bring about the required compliance late at night on New Year's Eve,
359 — 360 (Soz. iv. 23). In Januaiy, at the dedication of the Great Church of Constantine, the second step was
taken. The revised creed of Nike was reissued without the anathemas of Ariminum. Aetius was offered by his
friend Eudoxius as a sacrifice to the Emperor's scruples (see the account of the previous debates in Thdt. ubi
supra), much as Arius had been sacrificed by his fellow-Lucianists at Nicsea (§ 2 supra : nine bishops protested,
but were allowed six months to reconsider their objection ; the six months lasted two years, and then a reconci-
liation with Aetius took place for a time, Philost. vii. 6). Next a clean sweep was made of the leading semi-
Arians on miscellaneous charges (Soz. iv. 24, sq.), and Eudoxius was installed as bishop of the New Rome in the
place of Macedonius. The sacrifice of Aetius gave the Homoeans a free hand against their opponents, and was
compensated by the appointment of numerous Anomoeans to vacant sees. In particular Eunomius replaced
Eleusius at Cyzicus. In the eastern half of the Empire Homoeanism was supreme, and remained so politically for
nearly twenty years. But not in the West. Before the Council of Constantinople met, the power of the West
had passed away from Constantius. Gaul had acknowledged Julian as Augustus, and from Gaul came the voice
of defiance for the Homcean leaders and sympathy for their deposed opponents (Hil. Frag. xi. ). And even in the
East, throughout their twenty years the Homceans retained their hold upon the Church by a dead hand. ' The
moral strength of Christendom lay elsewhere ;' on the one hand the followers of Eunomius were breaking loose
from Eudoxius and forming a definitely Arian sect, those of Macedonius crystallising their cruder conservatism into
the illogical creed of the 'Pneumatomachi;' on the other hand the second generation of the ' semi-Arians ' were,
under the influence of Athanasius, working their way to the Greek Catholicism of the future, the Catholicism of
the neo-Nicene school, of Basil and the two Gregories.
The lack of inner cohesion in the Homoean ranks was exemplified at the start in the election of a new bishop
for Antioch. Eudoxius had vacated the see for that of New Rome ; Anianus, the nominee of the Homoeusian
'7 The discussions, reported with every appearance of sub-
stantial accuracy by Thdt. ii. 27, may have taken place at this
time, or at the council of the succeeding month (Thdt. fails to
distinguish tlie two meetings). Gwatkin, p. 180, appears to be
right in adopting the former alternative, viz. that the party of
Basil prudently abstained from attending a cc iincil in which they
would be overpowered : cf. Soz. iv. 24, who however contradicts
himself in the next chapter, tub fin. But the case is not quite
clear.
WRITINGS DURING THE THIRD EXILE. Ivii
majority of Seleucia, was out ot the question ; accordingly at a Council in 361 the Acacians fixed upon Meletius,
who iiad in the previous year accepted from the Ilomreans of CP. the See of Sebaste in the room of the exiled
Eustathius. The new Bishop was requested by the Emperor to preach on the test passage Prov. viii. 22. This
he did to a vast and eagerly expectant congregation. To the delight of the majority (headed by Diodorus and
Flavian), although he avoided the bfxooiKriuv, he spoke with no uncertain sound on the essential likeness of the
Son to the Father. Formally ' Nicene,' indeed, the sermon was not (text in Epiph. Ha?-. Ixxiii. 29-33, see Hort,
p. 96, note l), but the dismay of the Homosan bishops equalled the joy of the Catholic laity. Meletius was ' de-
posed' in favour of the old Arian Euzoius (tn/r., p. 70), and after his return under Jovian gave in his formal
adhesion to the Nicene test.
(3.) The history of Athanasius during this period is the history of his writings. Hidden
from all but devotedly loyal eyes, whether in the cells of Nitria and the Tliebaid, or lost in the
populous solitude of his own city, he followed with a keen and comprehensive glance the march
of events outside. Two men in this age had skill to lay the physician's finger upon the pulse
of religious conviction ; Hilary, the Western who had learned to understand and sympathise
with the East, Athanasius, the Oriental representative of the theological instincts of the West.
First of all came the writings of which we have spoken, the circular to the bishops and the
Apology to Constantius ; then the dignified Apology for his flight, written not long before the
expulsion of George late in 358, when he had begun to realise the merciless enmity and
profound duplicity of the Emperor. We find him not long after this in correspondence
with the exiled confessor, Lucifer of Calaris (pp. 561 s^., 481 s<^t/.), and warning the Egyptian
monks against compromising relations with Arian visitors {Letter 53, a document of high
interest), narrating to the trusted Serapion the facts as to the death of Arius, and sending
to the monks a concise refutation of Arian doctrine {Letters 52, 54). With the latter
is associated a reissue of the Apology of 351, and, as a continuation of it, the solitary
monument of a less noble spirit which Athanasius has left us, the one work which we
would gladly believe to have come from any other pen ^^. But this supposition is un-
tenable, and in the ferocious pamphlet against Constantius known as the Arian History
we are reminded that noble as he was, our saint yet lived in an age of fierce passions
and reckless personal violence. The Arian History has its noble features — no work of
Athanasius could lack them — but it reveals not the man himself but his generation ; his
exasperation, and the meanness of his persecutors. (For details on all these tracts see the
Introductions and notes to them.) None of the above books directly relate to the doctrinal
developments sketched above. But these developments called forth the three greatest works
of his exile, and indeed of his whole career. Firstly, the four Aoyot or Tracts against Arianism,
hi^jiwstfamousd^ogma tic work. Of these an account will be given in the proper place, "buT it
may be noticed here t^at they are evidently written with a conciliatory as well as a controversial
purpose, and in view of the position between 357 and 359. JVext, the four dogmatic letters
to Serapion, the second of which reproduces the substance of his position against the Arians,
while the other three are devoted to a question overlooked in the earlier stages of the contro-
versy, the Coessentiality of the Holy Spirit. This work may possibly have come after the third,
and in some ways the most striking, of the series, the de Synodis written about the end of 359,
and intended as a formal offer of peace to the Homoeusian party. Following as it did closely
upon the conciliatory work of Hilary, who was present at Seleucia on the side of the majority,
this magnanimous Eirenicon produced an immediate effect, which we trace in the letters of the
younger Basil written in the same or following year; but the full effect and justification of the
book is found in the influence exerted by Athanasius upon the new orthodoxy which eventually
restored the ' ten provinces ' to ' the knowledge of God' (Hil. de Syn. 63. Further details in
Introd. to de Syn., infra, p. 448. It may be remarked that the romantic idea of his secret presence
at Seleucia, and even at Ariminum, must be dismissed as a too rigid inference from an expression
used by him in that work : see note i there).
This brings us to the close of the eventful period of the Third Exile, and of the long series
of creeds which registers the variations of Arianism during thirty years. We may congratulate
ourselves on 'having come at last to the end of the labyrinth of expositions' (Socr.ii. 4i),and within
sight of the emergence of conviction out of confusion, of order out of chaos. The work of
setting in order opens our next period. Of the exile there is nothing more to tell except its
close. Hurrying from Antioch on his way from the Persian frontier to oppose the eastward
march of Julian, Constantius caught a fever, was baptised by Euzoius, and died at Mopsucren^
under Mount Taurus, on Nov. 3, 361. Julian at once avowed the heathenism he had long
cherished in secret, and by an edict, published in Alexandria on Feb. 9, recalled from exile all
'• He always used amanuenses, but we have no evidence that he entrusted them with actual compositi jn, p. 242.
Iviii PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 9.
bishops banished by Constantius. ' And twelve days after the posting of this edict Athanasius
appeared at Alexandria and entered the Church on the twenty-seventh day of the same month,
Mechir (Feb. 21). He remained in the Church until the twenty-sixth of Paophi (i.e., Oct. 23)
. . . eight whole months ' {Hist. Aceph. vii. The murder of George has been referred to above,
p. liii.).
§ 9. Athanasius under Julian and his successors; Fourth and Fifth Exiles. Feb. 21, 362,
to Feb. I, 366.
(a) The Council of Alexand7-ia in 362. The eight months of undisturbed residence
enjoyed by Athanasius under Juhan were well employed. One of his first acts was to convoke
a Synod at Alexandria to deal with the questions which stood in the way of the peace of the
Church. The Synod was one ' of saints and confessors,' including as it did many of the
Egyptian bishops who had suffered under George (p. 483, note 3, again we miss the name
of the trusted Scrapion), Asterius of Petra and Eusebius of Vercellae, with legates from
Lucifer of Calaris, ApoUinarius of Laodicea, and Pauhnus the Presbyter who ruled the
Eustathian community of Antioch. Our knowledge of the proceedings of the Synod (with an
exception to be referred to later on) is derived entirely from its ' Tome' or Synodal letter
addressed to the latter community and to the exiles who were its guests. Rufinus, from whom
or from the Tome itself Socrates appears to derive his knowledge, follows the Tome closely,
with perhaps a faint trace of knowledge from some other ^ source. Sozomen gives a short and
inadequate report (v. 12). But the importance of the Council is out of all proportion either
to the number of bishops who took part in it or to the scale of its documentary records.
Jerome goes so far as to say that by its jucHcious conciliation it ' snatched the whole world from
the jaws of Satan ' {Adv. Lucif. 20). If this is in any measure true, if it undid both in East and
West the humiliating results of the twin Synods of 359, the honour of the achievement is due
to Athanasius alone. He saw that victory was not to be won by smiting men who were ready
for peace, that the cause of Christ was not to be furthered by breaking the bruised reed and
quenching the smoking flax. (Best accounts of the Council, Newman, Ariaiis V. i., Kriiger, Luaf.
41 — 52, Gwatkin, p. 205, sqq.) The details may be reserved for the Introduction to the Tome,
p. 481. But in the strong calm moderation of that document we feel that Athanasius is no longer
a combatant arduously contending for victory, but a conqueror surveying the field of his triumph
and resolving upon the terms of peace. The Council is the ripe first-fruits of the de Svjiodis,
the decisive step by which he placed himself at the head of the reuniting forces of Eastern
Christendom ; forces which under the recognised headship of the ' Father of Orthodoxy ' were
able successfully to withstand the revived political supremacy of Arianism under Valens, and
after his death to cast it out of the Church. The Council then is justly recognised as the crown
of the career of Athanasius, for its resolutions and its Letter unmistakably proceed from him
alone, and none but he could have tempered the fiery zeal of the confessors and taught them
to distinguish friend from foe.
It would have been well had Lucifer been there in person and not by deputy only. As it was he had gone
to Antioch in fiery haste, with a promise extorted by Eusebius to do nothing rashly. Fanatical in his orthodoxy,
quite unable to grasp the theological differences between the various parties (his remonstrances with Hilary upon
the conciliatory efforts of the latter shew his total lack of theology : see also Kriiger, pp. 36, sq. ), and con-
centrating all his indignation upon persons rather than principles, Lucifer found Antioch without a bishop ; for
Euzoius was an Arian, and Meletius, whose return to the church ot the Palsea was (so it seems) daily expected,
was to Lucifer little better. What to such a man could seem a quicker way to the extinction of the schism than
the immediate ordination of a bishop whom all would respect, and whose record was one of the most
uncompromising resistance to heresy? Lucifer accordingly, with the aid we may suppose of Kymatius and
Anatolius, ordained Paulinus, the widely-esteemed head of the irreconcileable or (to adopt Newman's word)
protestant minority, who had never owned any Bishop of Antioch save the deposed and banished Eustathius.
The act of Lucifer had momentous consequences (see D.C. B. on Meleiius and Flavian, &c. ); it perpetuated
the existing tendency to schism between East and West; and but for the forbearance of Athanasius it would
perhaps have wrecked the alliance of Conservative Asia with Nicene orthodoxy which his later years cemented.
Even as it was, the relations lietween Athanasius and Basil were sorely tried by the schism of Antioch. The
Tome however was signed by Paulinus % who added a short statement of his own faith, which, by recognising the
legitimacy of the theological language of the other catholic party at Antioch, implicitly conceded the falseness of
his own position.
I He states (i) That a rigorist party in the council were at Lucifer promised to do nothing before he heard from Alxa., but
first opposed to all conciliatory measures ; this is highly probable, Eusebius can scarcely have gone to Antioch. I owe these notices
see Hieron. adv. Lucif. 20 ; (2) that former active Arians were to
be admitted to lay communion only ; this is not unlikely ; (3) by
impl.caiioii, that Eusebius and Lucifer went first to Antioch, and
agreed to take no step till after the Council which Eus. was to
attend in person, and Luc. by deputy, at Alxa., but that Luc.
broke his promise. This m:iy contain a grain of truth, i.e. that
to the excellent analysis of our sources of information in Kriiger,
Lucif. p. 46 sq. ; but he makes an odd slip, p. 48, in saying that
Soz. 'schweigt von der Synode zu .^lex. uberhaupt.'
2 This is placed later in 363 by Dr. Bright, D.C.B. i. too,
on the ground of a statement of Epiphanius, Hcer. 77. 20, which,
however, is not quite decisive on the point.
ATHANASIUS UNDER JULIAN. li:i
*■ . ^ _____
Eusebius and Asterius of Petra carried the letter to Antioch, where they found the mischief aheady done. In
-deep pain at the headstrong action of his fellow-countryman, Euiebius gave practical assurance to both parties of
his full sympathy and recognition, and made his way home through Asia and lUyria, doing his best in the cause of
concord wherever he came. Lucifer renounced communion with all the parties to what he considered a guilty
compromise, and journeyed home to Sardinia, making mischief ever^-where (terribly so at Naples, according to the
grotesque tale in the Lid. free; see D.C.B. iv. 1221 under Zosimus (2)), and ended his days in the twofold
reputation of saint and schismatic (Krliger, pp. 55, 1 16 st/.).
It may be well to add a few words upon the supposed Coptic acts of this council, anil upon their connection
with the very ancient Syntag7na Doctrinii, wrongly so named, and wrongly ascribed to Athanasius. These
'acts' are in reality a series of documents consisting of (£) The Nicene Creed, Canons, and Signatures; (2)
A Coptic recension oi ihe Synfag>?ia Doctrines ; (3) the letter of Paulinas from To/n. AhL, sub fin., a letter of
Epiphanius, and a fragmentary letter of ' Rufinus,' i.e. Rufinianus (see infr. p. 566, note i). Revillout, who pub-
lished these texts from a Turin and a Roman (Borgia) manuscript in 1881 [Le Concile de Nicit d''apris les texU's
Copies) jumped [Archives des missions scientifiques et litteraires, 1879) at the conclusion that the whole series
emanated from the council of 362, from whose labours all our copies of the Nicene canons and signatures are
supposed by him to emanate. His theory cannot be discussed at length in this place. It is worked out with
ingenuity, but with insufficient knowledge of general Church history. It appears to be adopted wholesale by
Eichhorn in his otherwise critical and excellent Aihafiasii de vita ascetica tesiinionia (see below, p. 189) : but even
those whose scepticism has not been awaked by the hypothesis itself must I think be satisfied by the careful study
of M. BatifFol {Studia Fatristica, fasc. ii. ) that Revillout has erected a castle in the air. Of any 'acts' of the
Council of 362 the documents contain no trace at all. It is therefore out of place to do more than allude here to
the great interest of the Syntagma in its three or four extant recensions in connection at once with the history of
Egyptian Monasticism and with the literature of the AtSax^ rSiv iff awocrTSAuf (see Harnack in Theol. Litzg. 1887,
pp. 32, sqq., Eichhorn, ib. p. 569, Warfield in Andover Review, 1886, p. 81, sqq., and other American literature
leferred to by Harnack a.a.O).
All over the Empire the exiles were returning, and councils w^ere held (p. 489), repu-
diating the Homoean formula of union, and affirming that of Nicaea. In dealing with the
question of those who had formerly compromised themselves with Arianism, these councils
followed the lead of that of Alexandria, which accordingly is justly said by Jerome {adv.
Liicif. 20) to have snatched the world from the jaws of Satan, by obviating countless schisms
and attaching to the Church many who might otherwise have been driven back into Arianism.
Such were the more enduring results of the recall of the exiled bishops by Juhan \ results
very different from what he contemplated in recalling them. Aj^parentiy before the date of
the council he had written to the Alexandrians {Ep. 26), explaining that he had recalled the
exiles to their countries, not to their sees, and directing that Athanasius, who ought after so
many sentences against him to have asked special permission to return, should leave the City at
once on pain of severer punishment. An appeal seems to have been made against this order
by the people of Alexandria, but without effect. Pending the appeal Athanasius apparently
felt safe in remaining in the town, and carrying out the measures described above. In October
(it would seem) Julian wrote an indignant letter to the Prefect Ecdikius Olympus (Sievers,
p. 124), threatening a heavy fine if Athanasius, 'the enemy of the gods,' did not leave not
only Alexandria, but Egypt, at once. He adds an angry comment on his having dared to
baptize 'in my reign' Greek ladies of rank {Ep. 6). Another letter {Ep. 51) to the people of
Alexandria, along with arguments in favour of Serapis and the gods, and against Christ,
reiterates the order for Athanasius to leave Egypt by Dec. i. Julian's somewhat petulant
reference to the bishop as a 'contemptible little fellow' ill conceals his evident feeling that
Athanasius, who had 'coped with Constantius like a king battUng with a king' (Greg. Naz.),
was in Egypt a power greater than himself. But no man has ever wielded such political power
as Athanasius with so little disposition to use it. He bowed his head to the storm and prepared
to leave Alexandria once more (Oct. 23). His friends stood round lamenting their loss.
^ Be of good heart,' he replied, ' it is only a cloud, and will soon pass away ' (Soz. v. 14). He
took a Nile boat, and set off toward Upper Egypt, but finding that he was tracked by the
government officers he directed the boat's course to be reversed. Presently they met that of
the pursuers, who suspecting nothing asked for news of Athanasius. 'He is not far off' was
the answer, given according to one acpount by Athanasius himself (Thdt. iii. g, Socr. iii. 14).
He returned to Chaereu, the first station on the road eastward from Alexandria (as is inferred
from the Thereu or Thereon oi Hist. Aceph. vii., viii. ; but the identification is merely conjec-
tural ; for Chaereu cf. Itiii. and Vit. Ant. 86), and after danger of pursuit was over, ' ascended
to the upper parts of Egypt as far as Upper Hermupolis in the Thebaid and as far as
Antinoupolis ; and while he abode in these places it was learned that Julian the Emperor was
dead, and that Jovian, a Christian, was Emperor' {Hist. Aceph.). Of his stay in the Thebaid
(cf. Fest. Ind. xxxv.) some picturesque details are preserved in the life of Pachomius and the
letter of Ammon (on which see below, p. 487). As he approached Hermupolis, the bishops,
clergy, and monks ('about 100 in number') of the Thebaid Ihied both banks of the river
to welcome him. ' Who are these,' he exclaimed, 'that fly as a cloud and as doves with their
Ix
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 9-
young ones' (Isa. Ix. 8, LXX). Then he saluted the Abbat Theodore, and asked after the
brethren. ' By thy holy prayers, Father, we are well.' He was mounted on an ass and escorted
to the monastery with burning torches (they ' almost set fire to him '), the abbat walking before
him on foot. He inspected the monasteries, and expressed his high approval of all he heard
and saw, and when Theodore, upon departing for his Easter (363) visitation 3 of the bre-
thren, asked ' the Pope ' to remember him in his prayers, the answer was characteristic : ' If
we forget thee, O Jerusalem ' {Vif. Pachom. 92, see p. 569). About midsummer he was near
Antinoupolis, and trusted messengers warned him that the pursuers were again upon his track.
Theodore brought his covered boat to escort him up to Tabenne, and in company with an
' abbat ' called Pammon they made their way slowly against wind and stream. Athanasius
became much alarmed and prayed earnestly to himself, while Theodore's monks towed the
boat from the shore. Athanasius, in reply to an encouraging remark of Pammon, spoke of the
peace of mind he felt when under persecution, and of the consolation of suffering and even
death for Christ's sake. Pammon looked at Theodore, and they smiled, barely restraining a
laugh. * You think me a coward,' said Athanasius. 'Tell him,' said Theodore to Pammon.
' ^o,you must tell him.' Theodore then announced to the astonished archbishop that at that
very hour Julian had been killed in Persia, and that he should lose no time in making his way
to the new Christian Emperor, who would restore him to the Church, The story (below, p. 487)
implies rather than expressly states that the day and hour tallied exactly with the death of
Julian, June 26, 2i^2i- This story is, on the whole, the best attested of the many legends of
the kind which surround the mysterious end of the unfortunate prince. (Cf. Thdt. H. E.
lii. 23, Soz. vi. 2. For the religious policy of Julian and his relation to Church history, see
Kendall's yi/Z/a;^ and the full and excellent article by Wordsworth in D.C.B. iii. 484 — 525.)
Athanasius entered Alexandria secretly and made his way by way of Hierapolis (Sept. 6,
Fest. Ind.) to Jovian at Edessa, and returned with him (apparently) to Antioch. On Feb. 14
(or 20, Fest. Index) he returned to Alexandria with imperial letters and took possession of
the churches, . his fourth exile having lasted ' fifteen months and twenty-two days ' {Hist,
Aceph.). The visit to Antioch was important.
Firstly, it is clear from the combined and circumstantial testimony of the Festal Index^
the Hist. Aceph., and the narrative of Ammon, that Athanasius hurried to meet Jovian on his
march from Persia to Antioch, and visited Alexandria only in passing and in private. He
appears to have taken the precaution (see below) of taking certain bishops and others,
representing the majority (n-X^^o?) of the Egyptian Church, along with him. Accordingly
the tale of Theodoret (iv. 2), that he assembled a council {rovs 'KoyifjKOTtpovs riov emaKonccu
f'yfipai), and wrote a synodal letter to Jovian, in reply to a request from the latter to furnish
him with an accurate statement of doctrine (followed by Montf., Hefele, &c.) must be set aside
as a hasty conjecture from the heading of the Letter to Jovian (see below, ch. v. § 3 (h),
and cf Vales, on Thdt. iv. 3, who suspected the truth).
Athanasius, secondly, had good reason for hurrying. The Arians had also sent a large
deputation to petition against the restoration of Athanasius, and to ask for a bishop. Lucius,
their candidate for the post, accompanied the deputation. But the energy of Athanasius was
a match for their schemes. He obtained a short but emphatic letter from Jovian, bidding him
return to his see, and placed in the Emperor's hands a letter (below. Letter 56, p. 567), insisting
on the integrity of the Nicene creed, which it recites, and especially on the Godhead
of the Holy Spirit.
Meanwhile at Antioch, where the winter was spent (Jovian was mostly there till Dec. 2i), there was much to
be attended to. Least important of all were the efforts of the Arian deputation to secure a hearing for their
demands. Jovian's replies to them on the repeated occasions on which they waylaid him are perhaps undigni-
fied (Gwatkin) but yet shew a rough soldier-like common sense. 'Any one you please except Athanasius'
they urged. * I told you, the case of Atlianasius is settled already : ' then, to the body-guard ' Feri, feri ' (i.e. use
your slicks!) Some of the TrKrjdos of Antioch seized Lucius and, brought him to Jovian, saying, 'Look, your
Majesty, at the man they wanted to make a bishop ! ' (See p. 568 sq.)
Athanasius appears to have attempted to bring about some settlement of the disputes which distracted the
Church of Antioch. The Hist, Aceph. makes him ' arrange the affairs ' of that Church, but Sozom. (vi. 5), who
copies the phrase, significantly adds is oXov re ^u — ' as far as it was feasible.' The vacillations (Philost. viii. 2, 7,
ix. 3, &c.) of Euzoius between Eudoxius on the one hand, and the consistent Anomoeans on the other, and
the formation of a definite Anomoean sect, represented in Egypt by Heliodorus, Stephen, and other nominees of the
bitter Arian Secundus (who appears to be dead at last) probably concerned Athanasius but little. But the breach
3 Kruger, in TAeoL Litzg. 1890, p. 620 sqg., fixes the death
of Theodore for Easter 363, on the ground, as I venture to think,
of a date (345) for the death of Pachomius too early by one year.
The question is too intricate to discuss here, but with all deference
to so competent a critic, I am confident that Theodore lived till
at any rate the ibllowing Easter. See in/r. p. 569, note 3.
ATHANASIUS UiNDER VALENS.
Ixi
among the Antiochene Catliolics was more hopeless than ever. The action of Paulinus in ordaining a bishop for
Tyre, Diodorus by name (p. 580 note), shews that he had caught something of the spirit of Lucifer, while on
the other hand we can well imagine that it was with mixed feelings that Athanasius saw a number ot bishops
assemble under Meletius to sign the Nicene Creed. To begin with, they explained the o/xoova-wv to be equivalent
to e/c TVS ovaiai and u/j.otoi' kut' ovaiav. Now this was no more than taking Athanasius literally at his word (dt
Syn. 41 exactly ; the confession, Socr. iii. 25, appears to meet Ath. ue Syn. half way : cf the reference to
'ZWviKr) XP'V'S with de Syn. 51), and there is no reason to doubt that the majority' of those who signed did so in
all sincerity, merely guarding the o/nonvaiuv against its Sabellian sense (which Hilary de Syn. "ji, had admitted as
possible), and in fact, meaning by the term exactly what Basil the Great and his school meant by it. This
is confirmed by the express denunciation of Arianism and Anomoeanism. But Athanasius may have suspected an
intention on the part of some signatories to evade the full sense of the creed, especially as touching the Holy Spirit,
and this suspicion would not be lessened by the fact that Acacius signed with the rest. It must remain possible,
therefore, that a clause in the letter to Jovian referred to above, expresses his dipleasure^ at the wording of
the document. (On the significance of the confession in question, see Gwatkin, pp. 226 sij., 244, note i.) "We
gather from language used by St. Basil at a later date (Bas. Ef^p. 89, 258) that Athanasius endeavoured to
conciliate Meletius, and to bring about some understanding between the two parties in the Church. Meletius
appears to have considered such efforts premature : Basil writes to him that he understands that Athanasius
is much disappointed that no renewal of friendly overtures has taken place, and that if Meletius desires the
good offices of the Bishop of Alexandria the first word must come from him (probably seven or eight years
later than this date). In justice to Meletius it must be allowed that Paulinus did his best to embitter the schism by
ordaining bishops at Tyre and elsewhere, ordinations which Meletius naturally resented, and appears to have
ignored (D.C.B. iv. Zeno (3), — where observe that the breach of canons began with the appointment of Paulinus
himself). Athanasius returned to Alexandria on Feb. 14 [Hist. Aceph.) or 20 (Fesi. hid.), and Jovian died,
by inhaling the fumes of a charcoal fire in the bedroom of a wayside inn, on Feb. 17.
Valentinian, an officer of Pannonian birth, was elected Emperor by the army, and shorty co-opted his brother
Valens to a share in the Empire. Valens was allotted the Eastern, Valentinian choosing the Western half of the
Empire. Valentinian was a convinced but tolerant Catholic, and under his reign Arianism practically died away
in the Latin West {infra, p. 488). Valens, a weak, parsimonious, but respectable and well-intentioned ruler, at first
took no decided line, but eventually (from the end of 364) fell more and more into the hands of Eudoxius (from
whom he received baptism in 367) and the Arian hangers-on of the Court (a suggestive, if in some details disputable,
sketch of the general condition of the Eastern Church under Valens in Gwatkin, pp. 228 — 236, 247 sq.). The
semi-Arians of Asia were continuing their advance toward the Nicene position, but the question of the Holy Spirit
was already beginning to cleave them into two sections. At their council of Lampsacus (autumn of 364) they
reasserted their formula of ' essential likeness ' against the Homoeans, but appear to have left the other and more
difficult question undecided. After Valens had declared strongly on the side of the enemy, they were driven
to seek Western aid. They set out to seek Valentinian at Milan, but finding him departed on his Gallic campaign
(Gwatkin, 236, note) they contented themselves with laying before Liberius, on behalf of the Synod of Lampsacus
and other Asiatic Councils, a letter accepting the Nicene Creed. After some hesitation (Soc. iv. 12) they were
cordially received by Liberius, who gave them a letter to take home with them, in which the controverted question
of the Holy Spirit is passed over in silence. (Letter of the Asiatics in Socr. iv. 12, that of Liberius in Hard. Cone.
i. 743-5, the names include Cyril of Jerusalem, Macedonius, Silvanus of Tarsus, Athanasius of Ancyra, &c., and
the Pope"s letter is addressed to them ' et universis orientalibus orthodoxis'). On their return, the disunion of the
party manifested itself by the refusal of several bishops to attend the synod convoked to receive the deputies
at Tyana, and by their assembling a rival meeting in Caria to reaffirm the 'Lucianic' Creed (Hefele, ii. 287
E. Tr.). Further efforts at reunion were frustrated by the Imperial prohibition of an intended Synod at Tarsus,
possibly in 367.
Athanasius remained in peace in his see until the spring of 365, when on May 5 a rescript
was pubhshed at Alexandria, ordering that all bishops expelled under Constantius who had
returned to their sees under Julian should be at once expelled by the civil authorities under
pain of a heavy fine. The announcement was received with great popular displeasure. The
officials were anxious to escape the fine, but the Church-people argued that the order could not
apply to Athanasius, who had been restored by Constantius, expelled by Julian in the interest
of idolatry, and restored by order of Jovian. Their remonstrances were backed up by popular
riots : when these had lasted a month, the Prefect quieted the people by the assurance that the
matter was referred back to Augustus {Hist. Aceph. x., followed by Soz. vi. 12). But on Oct. 5
an imperative answer seems to have come. The Prefect and the Commandant broke into
the Church of Dionysius at night and searched the apartments of the clergy to seize the bishop.
But Athanasius, warned in time, had escaped from the town that very night and retired to
a country house which belonged to him near the ' New River ' 7, This was the shortest and
mildest of the five exiles of Athanasius. In the autumn the dangerous revolt of Procopius threw
the Eastern Empire into a panic. It was no time to allow popular discontent to smoulder
at Alexandria, and on Feb, i, 366, the notary Brasidas publicly announced the recall of
4 This is certainly true of men like Athanasius of Ancyra,
fiusebius of Saniosata, Pelagius of Laodicea, Titus of Bostra, &c.
5 The tract (ie Hypocrisi Meletii et Eiisebii printed among
the 'dubious' works of Athanasius may well express the senti-
ments of some of his friends of the party of Paulinus on this occa-
sion. (Tillem. viii. 708.)
6 Tillem. vi. 789, follows Socrates (a bad leader in chronology)
in putting it in 365. But Mr. Gwatkin, p. 267, has carefully sifted
the evidence witii the above result.
7 So Hist. Acpph.. Fcst. Ind. Socrates iv. 13 says he hid four
months 'in his Father's tomlj.' Soz. vi. 12, mentions the story,
but finding it contr.Tdicted by the Hist. Aceph., adopts the vague
compromise 615 ti x'^O'O'' eKpuTrxcTO. '''''" < xr.,., o,„«, • .W^AAt^A
Alexandria from its Western suburbs.
The 'New River' divided
Ixii PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II. § lo.
Athanasius to Imperial order. The notary and ' curiales ' went out to the suburb in person
and escorted Athanasius in state to the Church of Dionysius.
§ lo. Last Years, Feb. i, 366 — May 2, 373.
Athanasius now entered upon the last septennium of his life, a well-earned Sabbath of
honoured peace and influence for good. Little occurred to disturb his peace at home, and if
the confusion and distress of the Eastern Church under Valens could not but cause him
anxiety, in Egypt at any rate, so long as he lived, the Catholic Faith was secure from
molestation.
In 367 Lucius, who had been ordained Bishop of Alexandria by the Arian party at
Antioch, made an attempt to enter the city. He arrived by night on Sept. 24, but on the
following day the public got wind of his presence in Alexandria, and a dangerous riot was
imminent. A strong military force rescued him from the enraged mob, and on Sept. 26 he
was escorted out of Egypt. In the previous year a heathen riot had taken place and the
great Church in the Caesareum had been burned. But in May, 368, the building was
recommenced (the incendiaries having been punished) under an Imperial order.
On Sept. 22, 368, Athanasius began to build a Church in the quarter ' Mendidium '
(perhaps in commemoration of his completion of the 40th year of his Episcopate, see Hist.
Aceph. xii.), which was dedicated Aug. 7, 370, and called after his own name.
In 368 or the following year we place the Synod at which Athanasius drew up his letter to the bishops of
Africa giving an account of the proceedings at Nicaea, and mentioning his dissatisfaction at the continued
immunity enjoyed by Auxentius at Milan (see p. 488).
Our knowledge of the last years of the life of Athanasius is derived partly from his own letters (59—64),
partly from the scanty data of his latest works, partly from the letters of Synesius and Basil. From Synesius
{Ep. Ti) we hear of the case of Siderius, a young officer from the army who was present in Libya on civil duty.
The Bishop of Erythrum, Orion by name, was in his dotage, and the inhabitants of two large villages in the
diocese, impatient of the lack of supervision, clamoured for a bishop of their own, and for the appointment of
Siderius. Siderius was accordingly consecrated by a certain Bishop Philo alone, without the canonical two
assistants, and without the cognisance of Athanasius. But in view of the immense utility of the appointment
Athanasius overlooked its irregularity, and even promoted Siderius to the Metropolitan see of Ptolemais,
merging the two villages upon Orion's death once more into their proper diocese. (Fuller details D.C.B. iv.
777, sq.) But if Athanasius was no slave to ecclesiastical discipline when the good of the church was in question,
he enforced it unsparingly in the interest of morality. An immoral governor of Libya was sternly excommuni-
cated and the fact announced far and wide. We have the reply of Basil the Great, who in 370 had become
Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, to this notification, and from this time frequent letters passed between the
champions of the Old and of the New Nicene orthodoxy. Unhappily we have none of the letters of Athanasius :
those of Basil shew us that the loss is one to be deplored. The correspondence bore partly on the continu-
ance of the unhappy schism at Antioch. Basil asks for the mediation of Athanasius ; if he could not bring
himself to write a letter to the bishops in communion with Meletius, he might at least use his influence with
Paulinus and prevail upon him to withdraw. He also presses Meletius to take the initiative in conciliation :
possibly he did so, at least one of Basil's letters is sent by the hand of one of Meletius' deacons (Bas. Epp. 60,
66, 69, 80, 82, 89). But ' nothing came of the application : ' Meletius probably felt injured at the strong
support Athanasius had given to Paulinus, even in so questionable an affair as that of Diodorus of Tyre
(supra, § 9, and cf. Letter 64) ; while Athanasius was too deeply committed to surrender Paulinus, who again
was the last man to yield of his own accord (Thdt. H.E. v. 23).
Basil obtained the good offices of Athanasius in his attempt to induce the bishops of Rome and the West
to give him some support in his efforts against heresy in the East ; but the failure here was due to the selfish-
ness and arrogance of the Westerns. {Epp. 61, 67).
Basil was also troubled with the continued refusal of Athanasius and the Westerns to
repudiate Marcellus, who was still living in extreme old age, and to whom the mass of the
people at Ancyra were attached (Bas. Ep. 266, Legat. Eugen. i, dvapiQixrjrov TtXijBoi). This
state of things, he urged, kept alive the prejudice of many against the Nicene decrees {Ep.
69). But the Marcellians, perhaps aware of the efforts of Basil, sent a deputation, headed
by the deacon Eugenius, and fortified by letters from ' the bishops ' of Macedonia and Achaia,
to Alexandria. A synod was apparently in readiness to receive them, and upon demand they
produced a statement of their faith, emphatically adopting the Nicene creed, condemning
Sabellius, but affirming an ev vTtodrddei zpidda. The distinction between A6ro<; and the Son
is rejected, and the idea that the Monad existed before the Son anathematised. Photinus
is classed as a heretic with Paul of Samosata. Only the eternal duration of Christ's kingdom
is not mentioned. (It may be noted that while this letter gives up many points of the theology
of Marcellus, the process is quite completed in a letter submitted by the Marcellian community
in 375 to some exiled Egyptian bishops at Diocsesarea ^; Epiph. Maer. 72, n). Athanasius
accepted the confession, and the assembled bishops subscribed their names (only a few
* For the best treatment of the document, see Zahn, p, 95. 1 812 ; least of all the writer's suggestion that Athanasius was
I am quite unable to follow the theory advanced in D. C. B. ui. | ' egregiously duped ' (1) by Marcellus.
LAST YEARS OF ATHANASIUS. Ixiii"
signatures are preserved). While we understand Basil's regret at the refusal of Athanasius to
condemn Marcellus, we can scarcely share it. If Athanasius shewed partiality toward his old
ally, it was an error of generosity, or rather let us say a recognition of the truth, too often
forgotten in religious controversy, that mistakes are not necessarily heresies, and that a man
may go very far wrong in his opinions and yet be entitled to sympathy and respect.
Basil speaks of Athanasius in terms of unbounded veneration and praise, and Athanasius
in turn rebukes those who attempted to disparage Basil's orthodoxy, calling him a bishop such
as any church might desire to call its own (p. 579 s^.).
During the last decade of his life the attention of Athanasius was drawn to the questions
raised by the Arian controversy as to the human nature of our Lord. The Arian doctrine on
this subject was apparently as old as Lucian, but the whole subject received little or no atten-
tion in the earlier stages of the controversy, and it was only with the rise of the Anomoean
school that the questions came into formal discussion. In the later letters of Athanasius we
see the traces of wide-spread controversy on the matter (especially in that to Epictetus, No. 59),
and Apollinarius, bishop of the Syrian Laodicea, and a former close friend of Athanasius, whose
legates in 362 had joined in condemning the Arian Christology, broached a peculiar theory on
the subject, viz., that while Christ took a human sou/ along with His Body, the Word took
the place of the human spirt f, itvevua (i Thess. v. 23). The details of the system do not belong
to our subject (an excellent sketch in Gwatkin's Arian Controversy, pp. 136 — 141) ; in fact
it was two years after the death of Athanasius when Apollinarius definitely founded a sect
by consecrating a schismatic bishop for the already distracted Church of Antioch. But
Athanasius marked with alarm the tendency of his friend, and in the very last years of his life
wrote a tract against his tenet in two short books, in which, as in writing against Marcellus
and Photinus 15 years before, he refrains from mentioning Apollinarius by name. It may be
observed that at the close of the second book he brings himself for the first time to censure
by name ' him they call Photinus,' classing him along with Paul of Samosata.
Athanasius was active to the last ; spiritually (we are not able to say physically) ' his eye
was not dim, nor his natural force abated.' In his seventy-fifth year he entered (Ruf. ii, 3)
upon the forty-sixth year of his episcopate. Feeling that his end was near, he followed the
example of his revered predecessor Alexander, and named Peter as the man whom he judged
fittest to succeed him ; then 'on the seventh of Pachon ° (May 2, 373) he departed this life
in a wonderful manner.'
CHAPTER III.
Writings and Personal Characteristics of S. Athanasius.
§ I. It will be attempted to give a complete list of his writings in chronological order ; those included
in this volume will be marked with an asterisk and enumerated in this place without remark. The figures
prefixed indicate the probable date.
(i) 318 : * Two books ' contra Gentes,' viz. c. Gent, and de Incarn. (2) 321-2 : * Depositio Arii (on
its authorship, see Introd.) (3) 328-373 : * Festal Letters. (4) 328-335 ? * Ecthesis or Expositio Fidei.
(5) Id. ? * In illud Omnia, etc. (6) 339 : * Encyclica ad Episcopos ecclesiae catholicas. (7) 343 : * Sar-
dican Letters (46, 47, in this vol.). (8) 351? * Apologia contra Arianos. (g) 352? * De Decre-
Tis Concilii Nicseni, with the * Epistola Eusebii (a.d. 325) as appendix. (10) Id. ? * De Sententia Dio-
NYSii. (ri) 350-353? * Ad Amun, (Letter 48). (12)354: * Ad Draco ntium (Letter 49 in this vol.). (13)
356-362? *Vita Antonil (14) 356 : * Epistola ad Episc. .^gypti et Libyae. (15) 356-7 : * Apol. ad
Constantium. (16) 357: *Apol. de Fuga. (17) 358: *Epist. ad Serapionem de Morte Arii (Letter
54). (18) Id. * Two Letters to Monks (52, 53). (19) 358? * Historia Arianorum 'ad monachos.' (20)
Id. * Orationes adversus Arianos IV. (21) 359? * Ad Luciferum (Letters 50, 51). (22) Id.? Ad
Serapionem Orationes IV. (Migne xxvi. 529, sqq?). These Xoym or dogmatic letters are the most important
work omitted in the present volume. Serapion of Thmuis, who appears from the silence respecting him in the
lists of exiles to have escaped banishment in 356-7, reported to Athanasius the growth of the doctrine that,
while the Son was co-essential with the Father, the Spirit was merely a creature superior to Angels. Athana-
sius replied in a long dogmatic letter, upon receiving which Serapion was begged to induce the author to
abridge it for the benefit of the simple. After some hesitation Athanasius sent two more letters, the second
drawing out the proofs of the Godhead of the Son, the third restating more concisely the argument of the first.
The objections by which these letters were met were replied to in a fourth letter which Athanasius declared to
be his last word. The persons combated are not the Macedonians, who only formed a party on this question
at a later date, and whose position was not quite that combated in these letters. Athanasius calls them
TpoTtiKoi, or ' Figurists,' from the sense in which they understood passages of Scripture which seemed to deify
the Holy Spirit. It is not within our compass to summarise the treatises, but it maybe noted that Ath. argues
that where TtvEvua. is absolute or anarthrous in Scripture it never refers to the Holy Spirit unless the context
already supplies such reference (i. 4, sqq.). He meets the objection that the Spirit, if God and of God,
must needs be a Son, by falling back upon the language of Scripture as our guide where human analo-
gies fail us. He also presses his opponents with the consequence that they substitute a Dyad for a Trinity.
6 Fest Ind. xlv. The Hist. Aceph. give May 3 ; probably he died after midnight : but May 2 is kept as his feast by the Copts and by the
Western Church.
Ixiv PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER III., § i.
In the fourth letter, at the request of Serapion, he gives an explanation of the words of Christ about SIN against
THE Spibit. Rejecting the view (Origen, Theognostus) that post-baptismal sin is meant (§§ 9, sqq.), as favouring
Novatianist rigour, he examines the circumstances under which our Lord uttered the warning. The Pharisees
refused to regard the Lord as divine when they saw His miracles, but ascribed them to Beelzebub. They
blasphemed ' the Spirit,' i.e. the Divine Personality of Christ (§ 19, cf. Larn. iv. 20, LXX.). So far as the words^
relate to the Holy Spirit, it is not because the Spirit worked through Him (as through a prophet) but because
He worked through the Spirit (20). Blasphemy against the Spirit, then, is blasphemy against Christ in its worst
form (see also below, ch. iv., § 6). It may be noted lastly that he refers to Origen in the same terms of somewhat
measured praise (A -iroAv/j.ofiT^s Kal (piXS-n-oi/os), as in the De Decretis.
(23) 359-60. *De Synodis Arimini et Seleucise celebratis. (24) 362 : *ToMUS ad Antiochenos.
(25) Id. Syntagma Doctrine (?) see chapter ii. § 9, above. (26) 362 : *Letter to Rufinianus (Letter 55).
(27) 363-4: *Letter to Jovian (Letter 56). (28) 364? * Two small Letters to Orsisius (57, 58). (29) 369?
^Synodal Letter AD Afros. (30) Id.? *Letter to Epictetus (59). (31) Id.? *Letters to Adelphius and
Maximus (60, 61), (32) 363 — 372 ? *Letter to Diodorus of Tyre (fragment. Letter 64). (33) 372 : *Letters
to John and Antiochus and to Palladius (62, 63). (34) 372? Two books against Apollinarianism (Migne
xxvi. 1093, ^Qi- Translated with notes, &c., in Bright, Later Treatises of St. Athan.). The two books are
also known under separate titles: Book I. as ' de Incarnatione D.N.J.C. contra Apollinarium,' Book
II. as ' DE Salutari Adventu D.N.J.C The Athanasian authorship has been doubted, chiefly on the
ground of certain peculiar expressions in the opr^ning of Book I. ; a searching investigation of the question
has not yet been made, but on the whole the favourable verdict of Montfaucon holds the field. He lays
stress on the affinity of the work to letters 59 — 61. I would add that the studious omission of any personal
reference to Apollinarius is highly characteristic.) In the first book Athanasius insists on the reality of the human
nature of Christ in the Gospels, and that it cannot be co-essential with the Godhead. ' We do not worship
a creature?' No; for we worship not the Flesh of Christ as such but the Person who wears it, viz. the Son of
God. Lastly, he urges that the reality of redemption is destroyed if the Incarnation does not extend to the spirit
of man, the seat of that sin which Christ came to atone for (§ 19), and seeks to fasten upon his opponents a renewal
(§§ 20, 21) of the system of Paul of Samosata.
The second book is addressed to the question of the compatibility of the entire manhood with the entire
sinlessness of Christ. This difficulty he meets by insisting that the Word took in our nature all that God
had made, and nothing that is the work of the devil. This excludes sin, and includes the totality of our nature.
This closes the list of the dated works which can be ascribed with fair probability to Athanasius.
The remainder of the writings of Athanasius may be enumerated under groups, to which the * dated ' works
will also be assigned by their numbers as given above. Works falling into more than one class are given
under each.
a. Letters. (Numbers 3, 7, 11, 12, 17, 18, 21, 26 — 28, 30 — 33; spurious letters, see infr. p. 581.)
b. Dogmatic. (2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 20, 22-24, 26, 27, 29 — 31, 34.)
(35.) De Trinitate et Spiritii Sancto (Migne xxvi. 1191). Preserved in Latin only, but evidently from the
Greek. Pronounced genuine by JMontfaucon, and dated (?) 365.
(36) De Incarnatione et Contra Ariauos (ib. 984). The Athanasian authorship of this short tract is very
questionable. It is quoted as genuine by Theodoret Dial. ii. and by Gelasius de diiabtts nattiris. In some
councils it is referred to as 'On the Trinity against Apollinarius;' by Facundus as ' On the Trinity.' The
tract is in no sense directed against Apollinarius. In reality it is an argument, mainly from Scripture, for the
divinity of Christ, with a digression (13 — 19) on that of the Holy Spirit. On the whole the evidence is against
the favourable verdict of Montfaucon, Ceillier, &c. That Athanasius should, at any date possible for this tracts
have referred to the Trinity as ' the three Hypostases ' is out of the question (§ 10) : his explanation of Prov. viii.
22 in Orat. ii. 44 sqq. is in sharp contrast with its reference to the Ckwrk in § 6 ; at a time when the ideas of
Apollinarius were in the air and were combated by Athanasius (since 362) he would not have used language
savouring of that system (§§ 2, 3, 5, 7, &c.). It has been thought that we have here one of the Apollinarian
tracts which were so industriously and successfully circulated under celebrated names {infra, on No. 40) ; the
express insistence on two wills in Christ (§ 21), if not in favour of Athanasian might seem decisive against Apol-
linarian authorship, but the peculiar turn of the passage, which correlates the one will with aap^ the other with
iTVivaa and Beds, is not incompatible with the latter, which is, moreover, supported by the constant insistance on
God having come, eV aaoKi and iv ofMotduaTi avQpuntov. The afOptoitos TiXetos of § 8 and the iiiioiddr) Kara vavra
of § II lose their edge in the context of those passages. The first part of § 7 could scarcely have been written
by an earnest opponent of Apollinarianism. This evidence is not conclusive, but it is worth considering, and,
at any rate, leaves it very difficult to meet the strong negative case against the genuineness of the Tract.
(Best discussion of the latter in Bright, Later Treatises of St. A., p. 143 ; he is supported by Card. Newmani
in a private letter. )
(37) The Senno Maior de Fide. (Migne xxvi. 1263 sqq., with an additional fragment p. 1292 from Mai
Bibi. nov.). This is a puzzling document in many ways. It has points of contact with the earliest works of
Ath. (especially pieces nearly verliatim from the de Incarn., see notes there), also with the Expos. Fid. Card.
' Newman calls it with some truth, 'Hardly more than a set of small fragments from Ath.'s other works.'
However this may be, it is quoted by Theodoret as Athanasian more than once. The peculiarity lies in the
C(7;?j-/'a«/ iteration oi" hv^ptaixos for the Lord's human nature (see note on Exp. Fid.), and in some places as
though it were merely the equivalent to aooixo. or oapl, while in others Xhe" kv^ptuiros might be taken as the
seat of Personality (26, 32). Accordingly the tract might be taken advantage of either by Nestorians, or still
more by Apollinarians. The 'syllogistic method,' praised in the work by Montfaucon, was not unknown to
the last-mentioned school. (Prov. viii. 22 is explained in the Athanasian way. For a fuller discussion, result
unfavourable, see Bright, ubi supr, p. 145.)
(38) Fragments against Paul of Samosata, Macedonians, Novatians (Migne xxvi. 1293, 1313 — 1317).
The first of these may well be genuine. It repeats the (mistaken) statement of Hist. Ar. "i, that Zenobia
was a Jewess. Of the second, all that can be said is that it attacks the Macedonians in language borrowed
WRITINGS OF ATHANASIUS. Ixv
from Ep. ALg. II. The third, consisting of a somewhat larger group of five fragments, comprise a short
sentence comparing the instrumentality of the priest in absolving to his instrumentality in baptizing.
It rnay be observed that fragments of this brevity rarely furnish a decisive criterion of genuineness.
(39) Interpretatio Symboli (ih. 1232, Hahn, §66). Discussed fully by Caspari, Ungedruckte u.s.w. Quellen
i, pp. I — 72, and proved to be an adaptation of a baptismal creed drawn up by Epiphanius {A>icor. ad Jin.) in
374. It may be Alexandrian, and, if so, by Bishop Peter or Theophilus about 380. It is a 'Ep/iwji'eto, or rather
an expansion, of the Nicene, not as Montf. says, of the Apostles' (!), Creed.
(40) De Incarnatione Verbi Dei (Migne xxviii. 25 — 29). Quoted as Athanasian by Cyril of Alex., &c.,
and famous as containing the phrase Wiav cpvcriv rov Adyov {reirapKai/xefrif. Apollinarian ; one of the many
forgeries from this school circulated under the names of Athanasius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Julius, &c. See
Caspari, ttl/i supra 151, Loofs, Leontius, p. 82, sqq. Caspari's proof is full and conclusive. See also
Hahn, § 120.
(41) Verona Creed (Hahn, § 41, q.v.), & Latin fragment of a Western creed ; nothing Athanasian but the
MS. title.
(42) ' Damasine ' Creed (0pp. ed. Ben. ii. 626, Migne P.L. Ixii. 237 in Fig. Thaps.) forms the ' eighth ' of
the Libri de Trinitate ascribed now to Atlian. now to Damasus, &c., &c. : see Hahn, § 128 and note.
(43) ' de Incarnatione'' (Migne xxviii. 89), Anli-Nestorian : fifth century.
c Historical, or historico-polemical (6, 8 — 10, 13 — 19, 23).
(44) Fragment concerning Stephen and the Envoys at Antioch (Migne xxvi. 1293). Closely related
(relative priority not clear) to the account in Thdt. H.E., ii. 9.
d. Apologetic. To this class belong only the works under No. (i).
€. ExEGETiCAL (5). The other exegetical works attributed to Athan. are mainly in Migne, vol. xxvii.
(45) Ad Marcellinum de Interpretatione Psalmortim. Certainly genuine. A thoughtful and devout
tract on the devotional use of the Psalter. He lays stress on its universality, as summing up the spirit of all
the other elements of Scripture, and as applying to the spiritual needs of every soul in all conditions. He
remarks that the Psalms are sung not for musical effect, but that the worshippers may have longer time to
dwell upon their meaning. The whole is presented as the discourse tii/o$ <pi\oit6vov yepovTos, possibly an
ideal character.
(46) ExPOSiTiONES IN Psalmos, with an Argumentum (vTr6ee(ris) prefixed. The latter notices the
arrangement of the Hebrew Psalter, the division into books, &c., and accounts for the absence of logical order
by the supposition that during the Captivity some prophet collected as best he could the Scriptures which the
carelessness of the Israelites had allowed to fall into disorder. The titles are to be followed as regards author-
ship. Imprecatory passages relate to our ghostly enemies. In the Expositions each Psalm is prefaced by
a short statement of the general subject. He occasionally refers to the rendering of Aquila, Theodotion, and
Symmachus.
(47) Fragmenta in Psalmos. Published by Felckmann from the Catena of Nicetas Heracleota, who
has used his materials somewhat freely, often combining the comments of more than one Father into a single
whole.
(48) De Titulis Psalmorum. First published by Ahtonelli in 1746. This work, consisting of very
brief notes on the Psalter verse by verse, is spoken of disparagingly by Alzog, Patrol., p. 229, and regarded
as spurious, on good prima facie grounds, by Gwatkin, p. 69, note. Eichhorn, de Vit. Ascet., p. 43, note,
threatens the latter (1886) with a refutation which, however, I have not seen.
(49) Fragmentum in Cantica. (Photius mentions a Commentary on Eccles. and Cant.) From a Catena
published by Meursius in 1617. Very brief (on Cant. i. 6, 7, iii. l, 2, vi. l). A spurious homily is printed
(pp. 1349-1361) as an appendix to it.
(50) Fragmenta in Evang. Matth^i. Also from MS. catenae. Contain a remarkable reference
to the Eucharist (p. 1380, on Matt. vii. 6) and a somewhat disparaging reference to Origen [itt/r. p. 33)
in reference to Matt. xii. 32, which passage is explained as in Scrap, iv. {vide supra 22). The extracts
purport in some cases to be taken from a homiletical or expository work of Athanasius divided into
separate xAyoi. The passage ' on the nine incurable diseases of Herod ' is grotesque (Migne xxvi. 1252), but
taken from Joseph., B.J. I. xxiii. 5. Cf. Euseb. H. E. i. 8.
(51) Fragmenta in Lucam. Also from MS. catenae. At the end, a remarkable passage on the extent to
which prayers can help the departed.
(52) Fragmenta in Job. From Nicetas and MS. catenae. Contains little remarkable. 'Behemoth 'is
Satan, as elsewhere in Athan.
(53) Fragmentum in i Cor. A short paragraph on i Cor. vii. i, or rather on vi. 18, somewhat in-
adequately explained.
£ Moral and Ascetic, (ii — 13, [25], 28).
(54) Sermo DE Patientia. (Migne xxvL 1295.) Of doubtful genuineness (Montf., Gwatkin).
(55) De Virginitate. (Migne xxviii. 251). Pronounced dubious by Montf, spurious by Gwatkin,
genuine by Eichhorn (ubi supr., pp. 27, sqq.), who rightly lays stress on the early stage of feminine asceti-
cism which is implied. But I incline to agree with Mr. Gwatkin as to its claims to come from Athanasius.
' Three hypostases ' are laid down in a way incompatible with Athanasius' way of speaking in later life.
(56) Miscellaneous Fragments. These are too slight and uncertain to be either classed or discussed
here. De Amuletis (xxvi. 1319) ; de Azyniis, (1327), very dubious; In Ramos palmarum (1319), also
dubious; various small homiletical and controversial pieces (pp. 1224 — 1258) of various value and claims to
genuineness. (See also Migne xxv. p. xiv. No. xx.)
Of (57) Los Works (in addition to those of which fragments have been mentioned above) a Refutation of
Arianism is referred to in letter 52. We also hear of a treatise against heresies (a fragment above, No. 56).
A ' Synodicon,' with the names of all Bishops present at Nicaea, is quoted by Socr. i. 13, but is referred by
Revillout to his allet^ed Acts of the Synod of Alexandria in 362, which he supposes to have reissued the Acts
of Nicaea. See above, p. lix. A consolatory address to the Virgins maltreated by George is mentioned
■ by Theodoret, H. E. ii. 14 ; he quotes a few words, referring to the fact that the Arians would not even allow
them peacea'ile burial, but ' sit about the tombs like demons' to prevent it. The Oratio de defunctis {infra,
ch. iv. § 6, fragment above, 56) is ascribed to him by John Damasc, but by others to Cyril of Alexandria.
VOL. IV. e
Ixvi
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER III., §§ 2, 3.
Many of his letters must have been lost. The Festal Letters are still very incomplete, and his letters to
S. Basil would be a welcome discovery if they exist anywhere. A doctrinal letter against the Arians, not
preserved to us, is mentioned de Deer. 5, (See also Montfaucon's Prcef. ii. (Migne xxv. p. xxv., sqq.), and
Jerome, de Vir. illustr. 87, a somewhat careless and scanty list. )
The above enumeration includes all the writings attributed with any probability to S. Athanasius. The
firagmentary character of many of them is no great presumption against their genuineness. The Abbat Cosmas in
the sixth century advised all who met with anything by Athanasius to copy it, and if they had no paper, to use their
clothes for the purpose. This will readily explain (if explanation is needed) the transmission of such numerous scraps
of writing under the name of the great bishop. It will also partly explain the large body of SPURIOUS WORKS which
have sheltered themselves under his authority. To this class we have already assigned several writings (25, 36, 37 ?
39 — 43, 44 ? 48 ? 53 ? 55, 56 in part). Others whose claims are even less strong may be passed over, with only the
mention of one or two of the more important. They are all printed in Migne, vol. xxviii., and parallels to some,
especially the ' dubious ' In passionem et crucem Domini, are marked in Williams' notes to the Festal Letters, partly
incorporated in this volume. The epistola catholica and Synopsis Scriptures sacra are among the better known, and
are classed with a few others as ' dubia ' by Montfaucon, the fictitious Disputatio habita in co7icilio Nicano cotitra
Arium, among the ' spuria.' The silly tale de Imag-ine Berytensi seems to have enjoyed a wide circulation in the
middle ages. Of the other undoubtedly 'spurious' works the most famous is the ' Athanasian Creed' or
Quicunque Vult. It is needless to say that it is unconnected with Athanasius : its origm is still sub judice. The
second part of it bears traces of the period circa 430 A.D., and the question which still awaits a last word is whether
the Symbol is or is not a fusion of two originally independent documents. Messrs. Lumby, Swainson and others
have ably maintained this, but the difficulties of their hypothesis that the fusion took place as late as about 800 a.d.
are very great, and I incline to think will eventually prove fatal to it. But the discussion does not belong to out
present subject.
§ 2. Athanasius as an author. Style and characteristics.
Athanasius was not an author by choice. With the exception of the early apologetic tracts all the writings tha*
he has left were drawn from him by the stress of theological controversy or by the necessities of his work as
a Christian pastor. We have no systematic doctrinal treatise, no historical monograph from his pen, although his
writings are rich in materials for history and dogmatics alike. The exception to this is in the exegetical remains,
especially those on the Psalms, which [supra, No. 45, sqq. ) imply something more than occasional work, some
intention of systematic composition. For this, a work congenial to one who was engaged in preaching, his long,
intervals of quiet at Alexandria (especially 328 — 335, 346 — 356, 365 — 373) may well have given him leisure. But
on the whole, his writings are those of a man of powerfid mind indeed and profound theological training, but still
of a man of action The style of Athanasius is accordingly distinguished from that of many older and younger
contemporaries (Eusebius, Gregory Naz., &c. ) by its in artificiality. This was already observed by Erasmus, who
did not know many of his best works, but who notes his freedom from the harshness of Tertullian, the exaggeration
of Jerome, the laboured style of Hilary, the overloaded manner of Augustine and Chrysostom, the imitation of the
Attic orators so conspicuous in Gregory ; ' sed totus est in explicanda re.' That is true. Athanasius never writes
for effect, but merely to make his meaning plain and impress it on others. This leads to his principal fault, namely
his constant self-repetition (see p. 47, note 6) ; even in apologising for this he repeats the offence. The
praise by Photius (quoted below, Introd. to Orat.) of his anepiTToi' seems to apply to his freedom not from
repetition but from extravagance, or studied brilliancy. This simplicity led Philostorgius, reflecting the false taste
of his age, to pronounce Athanasius a child as compared with Basil, Gregory, or Apollinarius. To a modern
reader the manliness of his character is reflected in the unaffected earnestness of his style. Some will admire him
most when, in addressing a carefully calculated appeal to an emperor, he models his periods on Demosthenes de
Corona (see p. 237). To others the unrestrained utterance of the real man, in such a gem of feeling and
character as the Letter (p. 557) to Dracontius, will be worth more than any studied apology. With all his
occasional repetition, with all the feebleness of the Greek language of that day as an instrument of expression, if we
compare it with the Greek of Thucydides or Plato, Athanasius writes with nerve and keenness, even with a silent
but constant underflow of humour. His style is not free from Latinisms; irpeSa (= praeda) in the Encycl., ^erepavos
(= veteranus), ^r)\ov (= velum), nay im pus, &c. , ai^e barbarisms belonging to the later decadence of Greek, but not
without analogy even in the earliest Christian Literature. i,vvoipis is used in an unusual sense, p. 447. 'Ap^iofxavlrat
seems to be coined by himself; hKadriKuv, airo^evi^ni', eiraKoveiv (= answer), 4yKVK\f7v, &c., are Alexandrinisms
(see Fialon, p. 289). On the whole, no man was ever less of a stylist, while at the same time making the fullest
use of the resources furnished by the language at his command. Wlien he wrote, seven centuries of decay had passed
over the language of Thucydides, the tragedians, Plato and the Orators. The Latin Fathers of the day had at their
disposal a language only two centuries or so past its prime. The heritage of Thucydides had passed through Tacitus
to the Latin prose writers of the silver age. The Latin of Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustin, Leo, with all its;
ma^merisms and often false antithesis and laboured epigram, was yet a terse incisive weapon compared with the
patristic Greek. But among the Greek Fathers Athanasius is the most readable, simply because his style is natural
and direct, because it reflects the man rather than the age.
§ 3. Perso7ial characteristics (see Stanley's Eastern Church, Lect. vii.). To write an
elaborate character of Athanasius is superfluous. The full account of his life (chap, ii.), and
the specimens of his writings in this volume, may be trusted to convey the right impression
without the aid of analysis. But it may be well to emphasise one or two salient points ^
In Athanasius we feel ourselves in contact with a commanding personality. His early
rise to decisive epoch-making influence, — he was scarcely more than 27 at the council of
Nicaea, — his election as bishop when barely of canonical age, the speedy ascendancy which he
gained over all Egypt and Libya, the rapid consolidation of the distracted province under his
rule, the enthusiastic personal loyalty of his clergy and monks, the extraordinary popularity
I Of his personal appearance little is known. Gregory Naz.
praises his beauty of expression, Julian sneers at his small stature.
Later tradition adds a slight stoop, a hooked nose and small mouth,
short beard spreading into large whiskers, and light auburn baii;
(See Stanley ubi su/r.)
CHARACTER OF ATHANASIUS. ixvii
enjoyed by him at Alexandria even among the heathen (excepting, perhaps, 'the more
abandoned among them,' Hist. Ar. 58), the evident feeling of the Arians that as long as he was
intact their cause could not prosper, the jealously of his influence shewn by Constantius and
Julian, all this is a combined and impressive tribute to his personal greatness. In what then
did this consist ?
Principally, no doubt, in his moral and mental vigour ; resolute ability characterises his
writings and life throughout. He had the not too common gift of seeing the proportions of
things. A great crisis was fully appreciated by him ; he always saw at once where principles
separated or united men, where the bond or the divergence was merely accidental. With
Arius and Arianism no compromise was to be thought of ; but he did not fail to distinguish
men really at one with him on essentials, even where their conduct toward himself had been
indefensible {de Syn.). So long as the cause was advanced, personal questions were
insignificant. So far Athanasius was a partisan. It may be admitted that he saw little good
in his opponents ; but unless the evidence is singularly misleading there was little good to see.
The leaders of the Arian interest were unscrupulous men, either bitter and unreasoning fanatics
like Secundus and Maris, or more often political theologians, like Eusebius of Nicomedia,
Valens, Acacius, who lacked religious earnestness. It may be admitted that he refused to
admit error in his friends. His long alliance with Marcellus, his unvarying refusal to utter a
syllable of condemnation of him by name ; his refusal to name even Photinus, while yet
{Orat. iv.) exposing the error associated with his name; his suppression of the name of
Apollinarius, even when writing directly against him ; all this was inconsistent with strict
impartiality, and, no doubt, placed his adversaries partly in the right. But it was the partiality
of a generous and loyal spirit, and he could be generous to personal enemies if he saw in them
an approximation to himself in principle. When men were dead, unlike too many theologians
of his own and later times, he restrained himself in speaking of them, even if the dead man
were Arius himself.
In the whole of our minute knowledge of his life there is a total lack of self-interest. The
glory of God and the welfare of the Church absorbed him fully at all times. We see the
immense power he exercised in Egypt ; the Emperors recognised him as a political force of
the first order ; Magnentius bid for his support, Constantius first cajoled, then made war upon
him ; but on no occasion does he yield to the temptation of using the arm of flesh. Almost
unconscious of his own power, he treats Serapion and the monks as equals or superiors,
degging them to correct and alter anything amiss in his writings. His humility is the more
real for never being conspicuously paraded.
Like most men of great power, he had a real sense of humour (Stanley, p. 231, sq.,
ed. 1883). Even in his youthful works we trace it {mfr. p. 2), and it is always present,
though very rarely employed with purpose. But the exposure of the Arsenius calumny at
Tyre, the smile with which he answered the importunate catechising of an Epiphanius about
' old ' Marcellus, the oracular interpretation of the crow's ' eras ' in answer to the heathen
(Sozom. iv. 10), the grave irony with which he often confronts his opponents with some
surprising application of Scripture, his reply to the pursuers from the Nile boat in 362, allow
us to see the twinkle of his keen, searching eye. Courage, self-sacrifice, steadiness of purpose,
versatility and resourcefulness, width of ready sympathy, were all harmonised by deep
reverence and the discipline of a single-minded lover of Christ. The Arian controversy was to
him no battle for ecclesiastical power, nor for theological triumph. It was a religious crisis
involving the reality of revelation and redemption. He felt about it as he wrote to the bishops
of Egypt, ' we are contending for our all' (p. 234).
'A certain cloud of romance encircled him' (Reynolds). His escapes from Philagrius,
Syrianus, Julian, his secret presence in Alexandria, his life among the monasteries of Egypt in
his third exile, his reputed visits to distant councils, all impress the imagination and lend
themselves to legend and fable. Later ages even claimed that he had fled in disguise to Spain
and served as cook in a monastery near Calahorra (Act. SS. 2 Mail) ! But he is also surrounded
by an atmosphere of truth. Not a single miracle of any kind is related of him To invest
him with the halo of miracle the Bollandists have to come down to the ' translation ' of his
body, not to Constantinople (an event surrounded with no little uncertainty), but to Venice,
whither a thievish sea-captain, who had stolen it from a church in Staraboul. brought a
body, which decisively proved its identity by prodigies which left no room for doubt. But
the Athanasius of history is not the subject of any such tales. It has been said that no saint
outside the New Testament has ever claimed the gift of miracles for himself. At any rate
(though he displays credulity with regard to Antony), the saintly reputation of Athanasius
e 2
Ixviii PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IV., § i.
rested on his life and character alone, without the aid of any reputation fr miraculous
power. J J • •
And resting upon this firm foundation, it has won the respect and admiraon even of
those who do not feel that they owe to him the vindication of all that is sacred ad precious.
Not only a Gregory or an Epiphanius, an Augustine or a Cyril, a Luther or a Hocer, not only
Montfaucon and Tillemont, Newman and Stanley pay tribute to him as a CHstian hero.
Secular as well as Church historians fall under the spell of his personality, and fen Gibbon
lays aside his ' solemn sneer ' to do homage to Athanasius the great
CHAPTER IV.
The Theology of S. Athana^^ius.
S I. General considerations.
§ 2. Fundamental ideas ; Anthropolofjy, Soteriology.
§ 3. Fundamental ideas ; Ciod and Nature.
§ 4. Organs of Revelation. Bible, Church. Authority, 4c
§ 5. Content of Revelation. The Trinity, Inc.imation, &c.
§ 6. Derivative truths, Grace, means of grace, F.thics, Escna'clogy.
§ I . General considerations.
The theological training of Athanasius was in the school of Alexandria, md under
the still predominant although modified influence of Origen (see above, pp. ar,, xxvii.).
The resistance which the theology of that famous man had everj'where encoutcred had
not availed, in the Greek-speaking churches of the Elast, to stem its influen- ; at the
same time it had made its way at the cost of much of its distinctive character. 1; principal
opponent, Methodius, who represented the ancient Asiatic tradition, was Imsclf not
uninfluenced by the theology he opposed. The legacy of his generation to le Nicene
age was an Origenism temj)ered in various degrees by the Asiatic theology and)y accom-
modations to the traditional canon of ecclesiastical teaching. The degrees of his modi-
fication were various, and the variety was reflected in the indeterminate body of " '^ical
conviction which we find at the time of the outbreak of Arianism, and which... ...;cady
explained, lies at the basis of the reaction against the definition of Nica^a. Th theology
of Alexandria remained Origenist, and the Origenist character is purest and m- 1 marked
in Pierius, Theognostus, and in the non-episcoj)al heads of the Alexandrian Sc.'.ol. The
bishops of Alexandria after Dionysius represent a more tcni])cred Origenism. 'specially
this holds good of the martyred Peter, whom we find expressly correcting distin ive parts
of the system of his spiritual ancestor. In .Mexandcr of .Alexandria, the theolo^ isor
of the young Athanasius, the combination of a fundamentally Origenist theology .... .Jeas
traceable to the Asiatic tradition is conspicuous',
Athanasius, then, received his first theological ideas from Origenist source, and in
so far as he eventually diverged from Origen we must seek the explanation paly in his
own theological or religious idiosyncrasy and in the influences which he encoutcred as
time went on, partly in the extent to which the Origenism of his masters wa already
modified by different currents of theological influence.
To work out this problem satisfactorily would involve a separate treatise and aearching
study, not only of Athanasius ^ but on the one hand of Origen and his .school, on he other
of Methodius and the earlier pre-Nicene theologians. What is here attempted is he more
modest task of briefly drawing attention to some of the more conspicuous eviences of
the process and to some of its results in the developed theology of the saintly bishop
It has been said by Harnack that the theology of Athanasius underwent no de\ opment, '
but was the saine from first to last. The truth of this verdict is I think limite by the
fact that the Origenism of Athanasius distinctly undergoes a change, or rather fade:away, in
his later works. A non-Origenist element is present from the first, and after the coiest with
Arianism begins, Origen's ideas recede more and more from view. Athanasius was ifluenced
negatively by the stress of the Arian controversy: while the vague and loose tigenism
of the current Greek theology inclined the majority of bishops to dread Sabellianisi rather
than Arianism, and to underrate the danger of the latter (pp. xviii., xxxv.), Athanasi^ deeply
1 To begin with, we have the interesting fact that Alexander , Nic), and hLs letter to his namesake of Bycuitiu, bear out
Studied the writmgs of Melito of Sardis, and even worked up
his tract Trept lAvxijs ical o-w/xaTos xai tis to ttoSos into a homi-
letical discourse of his own, omitting such passages as seemed to
savour of ' modalism/ (see Kruger in Zeitsckr. /. uiiss. Theol.
1888, p. 434, sgq.: his grounds are convincing). Secondly, the
expressions attributed to him by Arius (in his letter to Euseb.
the above statement.
» The reader is requested to supplement the nentarily r«fT
slender treatment of the Alhanasian theology in th 'ihapter bjT
referrmg to the General Irjdcx to tliis volume, a-i m. a.s to the
Index of Texts, for guidance to the passages of .\thdjius which
are needed to check, fill out, and qualify what is he presented
only in broad outline.
ATHANASIAN SOTERIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY. Ixix
irnpresid, from personal experience, with the negation of the first principles of redemption
which .rianism involved, stood apart from the first from the theology of his Asiatic contem-
porarie and went back to the authority of Scripture and the Rule of Faith. He was
infiuen-td J>osifive/}> by the Nicene formula, which represents the combination of Western with
anti-Ot;enist Eastern traditions in opposition to the dominant Eastern theology. The
Nicentformula found in Athanasius a mind predisposed to enter into its spirit, to employ
in its efence the richest resources of theological and biblical training, of spiritual depth
and viour, of self-sacrificing but sober and tactful enthusiasm ; its victory in the East is due
under -od to him alone.
Aianasius was not a systematic theologian : that is he produced no many-sided theology
like the of Origen or Augustine. He had no interest in theological speculation, none of the
instinc of a schoolman or philosopher. His theological greatness hes in his firm grasp
of sote.ological principles, in his resolute subordination of everything else, even the formula
6}ioo\iai., to the central fact of Redemption, and to what that fact implied as to the Person of
the Rceemer. He goes back from the Logos of the philosophers to the Logos of S. John,
from te God of the philosophers to God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. His
legacy ) later ages has been felicitously compared (Harnack. Dg. ii. 26, note) to that of the
Christm spirit of his age in the realm of architecture. ' To the many forms of architectural
conce}Jon which lived in Rome and Alexandria in the fourth century, the Christian spirit
added othing fresh. Its achievement was of a different kind. Out of the many it selected
and ccsecrated one ; the multiplicity of forms it carried back to a single dominant idea, not
so mu'i by a change in the spirit of the art as by the restoration of Religion to its place
as the entral motive. It bequeathed to the art of the middle ages the Basilica, and rendered
possib; the birth of Gothic, a style, like that of the old Greek Temple, truly organic. What
the Bailica was in the history of the material, the central idea of Athanasius has been in that
of the piritual fabric ; an auspicious reduction, full of promise for the future, of the exuberant
speculdon of Greek theology to the one idea in which the power of religion then resided
{ib. an pp. 22 sqq., freely reproduced).
§ 2. Fimdaniental ideas of man and his redemption.
1 Athanasius the Incarnation of the Son of God, and especially his Death on the Cross,
is the entre of faith and theology {Incar. 19, Kf(f>dXaiov Tfjs nicrTeas, cf. 9. i and 2, 20. 2, &c.).
*For ur salvation' {Incur, i) the Word became Man and died. But how did Athanasius
conce-e of ' salvation ' ? from what are we saved, to what destiny does salvation bring us,
and wat idea does he form of the efficacy of the Saviour's death? Now it is not too much to
say tht no one age of the Church's existence has done full justice to the profundity and
manydedness of the Christian idea of Redemption as effected in Christ and as unfolded by
S. Pal. The kingdom of God and His Righteousness; the forgiveness of sins and the
adopt)n of sons as a present gift ; the consummation of all at the great judgment ; — Christian
men ( different ages, countries, characters and mental antecedents, while united in personal
devot)n to the Saviour and in the sanctifying Power of His Grace, have interpreted these
centr; ideas of the Gospel in terms of their own respective categories, and have succeeded in
bringig out now one, now another aspect of the mystery of Redemption rather than in
presering the balance of the whole. Who will claim that the last word has yet been said on
S. Pai's deep conception of Goil's (not mercy but) Righteousness as the new and peculiar
elemet (Rom. i. 17, iii. 22, 26) of the Gospel Revelation? to search out the unsearchable
riche:of Christ is the prerogative of Christian faith, but is denied, save to the most limited
exten to Christian knowledge (i Cor. xhi. 9). The onesidedness of any given age in
appreending the work of Christ is to be recognised by us not in a censorious spirit of self-
compccency, but with reverent sympathy, and with the necessity in view ot correcting our
own •.natna SoKi/uaffre, to kiiKov Kartxere.
Sff'erent ages and classes have necessarily thought under diff"erent categories. The cate-
gorieofthepost-apostoUc age were mainly ethical; the Gospel is the new law, and the promise
of etmal life, founded on true knowledge of God, and accepted by faith. Those of the Asiatic
fathe; from Ignatius downwards were largely physical or reahstic. Mankind is brought in
Chrif (the physician) from death to life, from <^%a to d4>dapcria {Ign.passim) ; z6 eiayyeXiou . ^ .
dndpvfMa d(j)dapcTias (Ign., Mcht.) ; human nature is changed by the Incarnation, man made
God. Tertullian introduced into Western theology forensic categories. He applied them to
the Irson, not yet to the Work, of Christ : but the latter application, pushed to a repellent
lengt in the middle ages, and still more so since the Reformation, may without fancifulness
Ixviii
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IV., § i.
rested on his life and character alone, without the aid of any reputation for miraculous
power.
And resting upon this firm foundation, it has won the respect and admiration even of
those who do not feel that they owe to him the vindication of all that is sacred and precious.
Not only a Gregory or an Epiphanius, an Augustine or a Cyril, a Luther or a Hooker, not only
Montfaucon and Tillemont, Newman and Stanley pay tribute to him as a Christian hero.
Secular as well as Church historians fall under the spell of his personality, and even Gibbon
lays aside his ' solemn sneer ' to do homage to Athanasius the great
CHAPTER IV.
The Theology of S. Athanasius.
§ I. General considerations.
§ 2. Fundamental ideas ; Anthropology, Soteriology.
§ 3. Fundamental ideas ; God and Nature.
§ 4. Organs of Revelation. Bible, Church, Authority, &c.
§ 5. Content of Revelation. The Trinity, Incarnation, &c.
§ 6. Derivative truths, Grace, means of grace. Ethics, Esc'aa^ology.
§ I. General considerations.
The theological training of Athanasius was in the school of Alexandria, and under
the still predominant although modified influence of Origen (see above, pp. xiv., xxvii.).
The resistance which the theology of that famous man had everywhere encountered had
not availed, in the Greek-speaking churches of the East, to stem its influence ; at the
same time it had made its way at the cost of much of its distinctive character. Its principal
opponent, Methodius, who represented the ancient Asiatic tradition, was himself not
uninfluenced by the theology he opposed. The legacy of his generation to the Nicene
age was an Origenism tempered in various degrees by the Asiatic theology and by accom-
modations to the traditional canon of ecclesiastical teaching. The degrees of this modi-
fication were various, and the variety was reflected in the indeterminate body of theological
conviction which we find at the time of the outbreak of Arianism, and which, as already
explained, lies at the basis of the reaction against the definition of Nicsea. The theology
of Alexandria remained Origenist, and the Origenist character is purest and most marked
in Pierius, Theognostus, and in the non-episcopal heads of the Alexandrian School. The
bishops of Alexandria after Dionysius represent a more tempered Origenism. Especially
this holds good of the martyred Peter, whom we find expressly correcting distinctive parts
of the system of his spiritual ancestor. In Alexander of Alexandria, the theological sponsor
of the young Athanasius, the combination of a fundamentally Origenist theology with ideas
traceable to the Asiatic tradition is conspicuous ^
Athanasius, then, received his first theological ideas from Origenist sources, and in
so far as he eventually diverged from Origen we must seek the explanation partly in his
own theological or religious idiosyncrasy and in the influences which he encountered as
time went on, partly in the extent to which the Origenism of his masters was already
modified by diff'erent currents of theological influence.
To work out this problem satisfactorily would involve a separate treatise and a searching
study, not only of Athanasius ^ but on the one hand of Origen and his school, on the other
of Methodius and the earher pre-Nicene theologians. What is here attempted is the more
modest task of briefly drawing attention to some of the more conspicuous evidences of
the process and to some of its results in the developed theology of the saintly bishop.
It has been said by Harnack that the theology of Athanasius underwent no development,
but was the same from first to last. The truth of this verdict is I think limited by the
fact that the Origenism of Athanasius distinctly undergoes a change, or rather fades away, in
his later works. A non-Origenist element is present from the first, and after the contest with
Arianism begins, Origen's ideas recede more and more from view. Athanasius was influenced
negatively by the stress of the Arian controversy : while the vague and loose Origenism
of the current Greek theology inclined the majority of bishops to dread Sabellianism rather
than Arianism, and to underrate the danger of the latter (pp. xviii., xxxv.), Athanasius, deeply
1 To begin with, we have the interesting fact that Alexander
studied the writings of Melito of Sardis, and even worlced up
his tract vrepl i/(ux^s <cal auifiaTos kclI eis to ndOos into a homi-
letical discourse of his own, omitting such passages as seemed to
savour of ' modalism,' (see Kruger in Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.
1888, p. 434, sgg. : his grounds are convincing). Secondly, the
expressions attributed to him bv Arius (in his letter to Euseb.
Nic), and his letter to his namesake of Byzantium, bear out
the above statement.
2 The reader is requested to supplement the necessarily very
slender treatment of the Athanasian theology in this chapter by
referring to the General Index to this volume, as well as to the
Index of Texts, for guidance to the passages of Athanasius which
are needed to check, fill out, and qualify what is here presented
only in broad outline.
ATHANASIAN SOTERIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY. Ixix
impressed, from personal experience, with the negation of the first principles of redemption
which Arianism involved, stood apart from the first from the theology of his Asiatic contem-
poraries and went back to the authority of Scripture and the Rule of Faith. He was
inQuenced J>osi/ive/y by the Nicene formula, which represents the combination of Western with
anti-Origenist Eastern traditions in opposition to the dominant Eastern theology. The
Nicene formula found in Athanasius a mind predisposed to enter into its spirit, to employ
in its defence the richest resources of theological and biblical training, of spiritual depth
and vigour, of self-sacrificing but sober and tactful enthusiasm ; its victory in the East is due
under God to him alone.
Athanasius was not a systematic theologian : that is he produced no many-sided theology
like that of Origen or Augustine. He had no interest in theological speculation, none of the
instincts of a schoolman or philosopher. His theological greatness lies in his firm grasp
of soteriological principles, in his resolute subordination of everything else, even the formula
l\j.oovaios, to the central fact of Redemption, and to what that fact implied as to the Person of
the Redeemer. He goes back from the Logos of the philosophers to the Logos of S. John,
from the God of the philosophers to God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. His
legacy to later ages has been felicitously compared (Harnack. Dg. ii. 26, note) to that of the
Christian spirit of his age in the realm of architecture. 'To the many forms of architectural
conception which lived in Rome and Alexandria in the fourth century, the Christian spirit
added nothing fresh. Its achievement was of a different kind. Out of the many it selected
and consecrated one ; the multiplicity of forms it carried back to a single dominant idea, not
so much by a change in the spirit of the art as by the restoration of Religion to its place
as the central motive. It bequeathed to the art of the middle ages the Basilica, and rendered
possible the birth of Gothic, a style, like that of the old Greek Temple, truly organic. What
the Basilica was in the history of the material, the central idea of Athanasius has been in that
of the spiritual fabric ; an auspicious reduction, full of promise for the future, of the exuberant
speculation of Greek theology to the one idea in which the power of religion then resided '
{ib. and pp. 22 sqq., freely reproduced).
§ 2. Funda7ne7ital ideas of man and his redemption.
To Athanasius the Incarnation of the Son of God, and especially his Death on the Cross,
is the centre of faith and theology {Incar. 19, Ke^dXaiov r^s mo-Teco?, cf. 9. i and 2, 20. 2, &c.).
'For our salvation' (^Incar. i) the Word became Man and died. But how did Athanasius
conceive of 'salvation'? from what are we saved, to what destiny does salvation bring us,
and what idea does he form of the efficacy of the Saviour's death ? Now it is not too much to
say that no one age of the Church's existence has done full justice to the profundity and
manysidedness of the Christian idea of Redemption as effected in Christ and as unfolded by
S. Paul. The kingdom of God and His Righteousness; the forgiveness of sins and the
adoption of sons as a present gift ; the consummation of all at the great judgment; — Christian
men of diff"erent ages, countries, characters and mental antecedents, while united in personal
devotion to the Saviour and in the sanctifying Power of His Grace, have interpreted these
central ideas of the Gospel in terms of their own respective categories, and have succeeded in
bringing out now one, now another aspect of the mystery of Redemption rather than in
preserving the balance of the whole. Who will claim that the last word has yet been said on
S. Paul's deep conception of God's (not mercy but) Righteousness as the new and peculiar
element (Rom. i. 17, iii. 22, 26) of the Gospel Revelation? to search out the unsearchable
riches of Christ is the prerogative of Christian faith, but is denied, save to the most limited
extent, to Christian knowledge (i Cor. xiii. 9). The onesidedness of any given age in
apprehending the work of Christ is to be recognised by us not in a censorious spirit of self-
complacency, but with reverent sympathy, and with the necessity in view of correcting our
own : iravTa doKifid^ere, to kiiXov Kare^ere.
Different ages and classes have necessarily thought under difterent categories. The cate-
gories of the post-apostolic age were mainly ethical; the Gospel is the new law, and the promise
of eternal life, founded on true knowledge of God, and accepted by faith. Those of the Asiatic
fathers from Ignatius downwards were largely physical or reahstic. Mankind is brought in
Christ (the physician) from death to life, from <l)d6pa to dtttdapa-ia {Ign. J>assim) ; t6 dayyeXiov . . .
andpriafia a^dapalas (Ign., Mclit.) ; human nature is changed by the Incarnation, man made
God. TertuUian introduced into Western theology forensic categories. He applied them to
the Person, not yet to the Work, of Christ : but the latter appUcation, pushed to a repellent
length in the middle ages, and still more so since the Reformation, may without fancifulness
Ixx PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IV., § 2.
be traced back to the fact that the first Latin Father was a lawyer. Again, Redemp-
tion was viewed by Origen and others under cosmological categories, as the turning
point in the great conflict of good with evil, of demons with God, as the inauguration of the
deliverance of the creation and its reunion with God. The many-sidedness of Origen
combined, indeed, almost every representation of Redemption then current, from the pro-
pitiatory and mediatorial, which most nearly approached the thought of S. Paul, to the
grotesque but widely-spread view of a ransom due to the devil which he was induced to
accept by a stratagem. It may be said that with the exception of the last-named every one
of the above conceptions finds some point of contact in the New Testament; even the
forensic idea, thoroughly unbiblical in its extremer forms, would not have influenced Christian
thought as it has done had it not corresponded to something in the language of S. Paul.
Now Athanasius does not totally ignore any one of these conceptions, unless it be that of
a transaction with the devil, which he scarcely touches even in Orat. ii. 52 (see note there).
Of the forensic view he is indeed almost clear. His reference to the ' debt ' (ro dcpeiXofxevov,
/near, 20, Orat. ii. 66) which had to be paid is connected not so much with the Anselmic
idea of a satisfaction due, as with the fact that death was by the divine word (Gen. iii.), attached
to sin as its penalty.
The aspect of the death of Christ as a vicarious sacrifice (dvTi iravrav, de /near. 9; irpoacftopa
and Bvala, 10) is not passed over. But on the whole another aspect predominates. The cate-
gories under which Athanasius again and again states the soteriological problem are those of
CcDTj and ddvaros, (jidopa and dfpdapala. So far as he works the problem out in detail it is under
physical categories, without doing full justice to the ideas of guilt and reconciliation, of
the reunion of w/// between man and God. The numberless passages which bear this
out cannot be quoted in full, but the point is of sufficient importance to demand the
production of a few details.
(a) The original state of man was not one of ' nature,' for man's nature is cf>66pa ; (rfiv eV
Bavdrcp Kara (pvaiv cf>66pav, /near. 3, cf. 8, TO, 44) the Word was imparted to them in that they
were made Kara ^71- tov deov eUoua {ib). Hence what later theology marks off as an exclusively
supernatural gift is according to Athanasius inalienable from human nature, i.e. it can be
impaired but not absolutely lost {/near. 14, and apparently Orat. iii. 10 fin. ; the question
of the teaching of Athan. upon the natural endowments of man belongs specially to the Introd.
to de /nearnatione, where it will be briefly discussed). Accordingly their infraction of the
divine command (by turning their minds, e. Gent. 3, to lower things instead of to the decopia
Tcou Qeiuiv), logically involved them in non-existence {de /near. 4), but actually, inasmuch as the
likeness of God was only gradually lost, in (p66pa, regarded as a proeess toward non-existence^
This again involved men in increasing igfiorance of God, by the gradual obliteration of the
(iKav, the indwelling Logos, by virtue of which alone men could read the open book {e. Gent..
Z^fin.) of God's manifestation of Himself in the Universe. It is evident that the pathological
point of view here prevails over the purely ethical : the perversion of man's will merges in the
general idea of (f)66pa, the first need of man is a change in his nature; or rather the renewed
infusion of that higher and divine nature which he has gradually lost, (Cf de /near. 44,
XPJjCofTCiiP T^s avToii deorrjTOS dia Toii opoiov).
{b) Accordingly the mere presence of the Word in a human body, the mere fact of
the Incarnation, is the essential factor in our restoration (simile of the city and the king,
ib. 9. 3, &c., cf. Orat. ii. 67, 70). But if so, what was the special need of the Cross?
Athanasius felt, as we have already mentioned, the supremacy of the Cross as the purpose
of the Saviour's coming, but he does not in fact give to it the central place in his system
of thought which it occupies in his instincts. Man had involved himself in the sentence
of death; death must therefore take place to satisfy this sentence {Orat. ii. 69; de /near.
20. 2, 5) ; the Saviour's death, then, put an end to death regarded as penal and as symptomatic
of man's cp66pa (cf //'. 21. i, &c.). It must be confessed that Athanasius does not penetrate to
the full meaning of S. Paul. The latter also ascribed a central import to the mere fact of the
Incarnation (Rom. viii. 3, 7r€/x\|/'as'), but primarily in relation to sin (yet see Athan. c. ApolL
ii. 6) ; and the destruction of the practical power of sin stands indissolubly correlated (Rom. vui.
i) with the removal of guilt and so with the Righteousness of God realising itself in the
propitiation of the blood of Christ {ib. iii. 21 — 26).
To Athanasius nature is the central, will a secondary or implied factor in the problem.
The aspect of the death of Christ most repeatedly dwelt upon is that in it death spent its force
{TT\r)pa)6ei(Tr]s Ttjs e^ovaias iv ra KvpiaKu aa>p.ari, ib. 8) against human nature, that the ' corruption '
of mankind might run its full course and be spent in the Lord's body, and so cease for the
ATHANASIAN THEOLOGY AND MODERN KNOWLEDGE. Ixxi
future. _ or this Victory over death and the demons the Resurrection is the trophy. His
death is therefore to us (ib. lo) the apxh C<^^^, we are henceforth a(i>6apTo\ 8ia t^s dvaaTdaeas
(27. 2, 32. 6, cf. 34. I, &c.), and have a portion in the divine nature, are in fact deified
(cf. de Ificarn. 54, and note there). This last thought, which became (Harnack, vol. ii. p. 46)
the common property of Eastern theology, goes back through Origen and Hippolytus
to Irenaeus. On the whole, its presentation in Athanasius is more akin to the Asiatic
than to the Origenist form of the conception. To Origen, man's highest destiny could only
be the return to his original source and condition : to Irenaeus and the Asiatics, man had
been created for a destiny which he had never realised] the interruption in the history of
our race introduced by sin was repaired by the Incarnation, which carried back the race
to a new head, and so carried it forward to a destiny of which under its original head it
was incapable. To Origen the Incarnation was a restoration to, to Irenseus and to Athanasius
{Or. ii. 67), an advance upon, the original state of man. (Pell, pp. 167 — 177, labours to prove
the contrary, but he does not convince.)
(c) This leads us to the important observation that momentous as are to Athanasius the con-
sequences of the introduction of sin into the world, he yet makes no such vast difference between
the condition of fallen and unfallen men as has commonly been assumed to exist The latter state
was inferior to that of the members of Christ {Orat. ii. 67, 68), while the immense (c. Gent. 8, de
Incar. 5) consequences of its forfeiture came about only by a gradual course of deterioration
{de Incar. 6. i, r\(\iavi^iTo ; observe the tense), and in different degrees in different cases. The
only difference of kind between the two conditions is in the universal reign of Death since the
(partial) forfeiture of the rov Kar" €iKo//a x^pi-s : and even this difference is a subtle one ; for man's
existen(!ft in Paradise was not one of (l(j>dapa-ia except prospectively (de Incar. 3. 4). He enjoyed
present happiness, aXvrros dv6)Swos dixepLfifos C<ori,. with promise of di^Qapa-la in heaven. That is,
death would have taken place, but not death as unredeemed mankind know it (cf. de Incar.
21. i). In other words, man was created not so much in a state of perfection (reXetos- KTivOeisy
p. 384) as with a capacity for perfection (and for even more than perfection, p. 385 sq.) and
with a destiny to correspond with such capacity. This destination remains in force even after
man has failed to correspond to it, and is in fact assigned by Athanasius as the reason why
the Incarnation was a necessity on God's part {de Incar. 6. 4 — 7, 10. 3, 13. 2 — 4, Orat. ii.
66, &c., &c.). Accordingly, while man was created {Orat. ii. 59) through the Word, the Word
became Flesh that man might receive the yet higher dignity of SonshipS; and while even before
the Incarnation some men were de facto pure from sin {Orat. iii. 33) by virtue of the x"P'f ^^s
KXTjcrecos involved in Vo acot' dKova (see ib. ro, fin.; Orat. i. 39 is even stronger, cf iv. 22), they
were yet Qv^toI and (pdaprol ; whereas those in Christ die, no longer Kara rrju Trporepav ye'veaiv iv
Tw 'Abdp, but to live again Xoyadfia-rii Tris aap<6s {Orat. iii. ss, fin., cf. de Incar. 21. t).
{d) The above slight sketch of the Athanasian doctrine of man's need of redemption and of
the satisfaction of that need brings to light a system free from much that causes many modern
thinkers to stumble at the current doctrine of the original state and the rehgious history of
mankind. That mankind did not start upon their development with a perfect nature, but have
fought their way up from an undeveloped stage through many lower phases of development ;
that this development has been infinitely varied and complex, and that sin and its attendant
consequences have a pathological aspect which practically is as important as the forensic aspect,
are commonplaces of modern thought, resting upon the wider knowledge of our age, and hard
to reconcile with the (to us) traditional theological account of these things. The Athanasian
account of them leaves room for the results of modern knowledge, or at least does not rudely
clash with the instincts of the modern anthropologist. The recovery of the Athanasian point
of view \% prima facie a gain. At what cost is it obtained ? Does its recognition involve us in
mere naturalism veiled under religious forms of speech ? That was certainly not the mind of
Athanasius, nor does his system really lend itself to such a result. To begin with, the divine
destiny of man from the first is an essential principle with our writer. Man was made and is
still exclusively destined for knowledge of and fellowship with his Creator. Secondly the means,
and the only means, to this end is Christ the Incarnate Son of God.
In Him the religious
3 The above is strikingly illustrated by the discussion (pp.
381 — 383) of TrpuTOTOKos 7racri)5 KTiVecos (Col. i. 15). At first sight
Ath. appears to contradict himself, explaining TrpwroTOKos as he
does first solely of the Saviour as Incarnate , and then of the
cosmic and creative function of the Word. But closer examination
brings out his view of creation itself (p. 383) as an act of Grace,
demanding not (as the current Eastern theology held, in common
with Arius) the mediation of a subordinate Creator, but an act
of absolutely Divine condescension analogous to, and anticipatory
of, the Incarnation. The apparently disturbing persistence in the
argument of the cosmological explanation of ttputotokos is really
therefore due to a subtle change in it, by virtue of which it comes
into relation with the Soteriological idea, — which is the pivot of
the entire anti-Arian position of Athanasius on this question, — and
with the ultimate scheme in which (cf. Rom. viii.)_the effects of
the Incarnation are to embrace the whole creation. Because
creation as such involves the promise of adoption, and tends to
deification as its goal, the Son is n-pwroTOKOs in the region of
Grace and of Creation alike.
Ixxii
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IV., § 3.
't^
history of mankind has its centre, and from Him it proceeds upon its new course, or rather is
enabled once more to run the course designed for it from the first. How far Athanasius
exhausted the significance of this fact may be a question ; that he placed the fact itself in the
centre is his lasting service to Christian thought.
{e) The categories of Athanasius in dealing with the question before us are primarily
physical, i.e., on the one hand cosmological, on the other pathological. But it is well before
leaving the subject to insist that this was not exclusively the case. The purpose of the
Incarnation was at once to renew us, and to make known the Father {de Incarn. 16); or as he
elsewhere puts it {ib. 1 Jin.), dvaKrlaai ra oKa, virep navTcov nadf'iv, and 7re/Ji ttuvtcov irpecr^tvaai npoi
Tov Uarepa. The idea of d(pdap(Tia which so often stands with him for the summum bonum ♦
imparted to us in Christ, involves a moral and spiritual restoration of our nature, not merely the
physical supersession of <^6opa by adavaa-la (de Iticarn. 47, 51, 52, &c., &c.).
§ 3. Fundmnental ideas of God, the World, and Creation.
The Athanasian idea of God has been singled out for special recognition in recent times ;
he has been claimed, and on the whole with justice, as a witness for the immanence of God in
the universe in contrast to the insistence in many Christian systems on God's transcendence or
remoteness from all created things. (Fiske, Idea of God, discussed by Moore in Lux Mundi
(ed. i) pp. 95 — 102.) The problem was one which Christian thought was decisively com-
pelled to face by the Arian controversy {supra, p. xxix. sq.). The Apologists and Alex-
andrians had partially succeeded in the problem expressed in the dying words of Plotinus,
* to bring the God which is within into harmony with the God which is in the universe,' or
rather to reconcile the transcendence with the immanence of God. But their success ^as only
partial : the immanence of the Word had been emphasised, but in contrast with the transcend-
ence of the Father. This could not be more than a temporary resting-place for the Christian
mind, and Arius forced a solution. That solution was found by Athanasius. The mediatorial
work of the Logos is not necessary as though nature could not bear the untempered hand of the
Father. The Divine ^Vill is the direct and sole source of all things, and the idea of a ?nedia-
torial nature is inconsistent with the true idea of God (pp. 87, 155, 362, comparing carefully
p. 383). 'AH things created are capable of sustaining God's absolute hand. The hand which
fashioned Adam now also and ever is fashioning and giving entire consistence to those who
come after him.' The immanence, or intimate presence and unceasing agency of God in nature,
does not belong to the Word as distinct from the Father, but to the Father in and through the
Word, in a word to God as God {ci.de Deer, ii, where the language oi de Incarn. 17 about the
Word is applied to God as such). This is a point which marks an advance upon anything
that we find in the earliest writings of Athanasius, and upon the theology of his preceptor
Alexander, to whom, amongst other not very clear formulae, the Word is a /xeo-trevovo-a (f^va-is
/xoi/oyei/iyy (Thdt. H. E. ii. 4 ; Alexander cannot distinguish ^uo-ts from vTroo-rao-if or oxKx'ia ; Father
and Son are Suo axoopia-ra irpaypara, but yet rfi inoarrdcrei, bvo ^vareis). This is indeed the principal
particular in which Athanasius left the modified Origenism of his age, and of his own school,
behind. If on the other hand he resembled Arius in drawing a sharper line than had been
drawn previously between the one God and the World, it must also be remembered that his
God was not the far off purely transcendent God of Arius, but a God not far from every one
of us {Or at. ii. p. 361 sq.).
That God is beyond all essence vnepeKeiva irda-rjs olaias {c. Gent. 2. 2, 40. 2, 35. I yevrjrris
oialai) is a thought common to Origen and the Platonists, but adopted by Athanasius with a
difference, marked by the addition of yefj^r^r. That God created all things out of pure bounty of
being (c. Gent. § 2. 2, § 41. 2, de Incarn. § 3. 3, and note there) is common to Origen and Philo,
being taken by the latter from Plato's Timceus. The Universe, and especially the human soul,
reflects the being of its Author {c. Gent, passim). Hence there are two main paths by which
man can arrive at the knowledge of God, the book of the Universe {c. Gent, t^j^ fin.), and
the contemplation or self-knowledge of the soul itself (/<^. 33, 34). So far Athanasius is on
common ground with the Platonists (cf Fialon, pp. 270, sqq.); but he takes up distinctively
Christian ground, firstly, in emphasising the insufficiency of these proofs after sin has clouded
the soul's vision, and, above all, in insisting on the divine Incarnation as the sole remedy for
this inability, as the sole means by which man as he is can reach a true knowledge of God.
Religion not philosophy is the sphere in which the God of Athanasius is manifest to man.
4 On the subject off 2, see also Pell. Lehre des k. Aihan. and
Shedd ii. pp. 37, sgg., 237, sgg. The former demonstrates his full
accord with modern Roman Catholic teaching, the latter, bis exact
harmony with the modern Protestant view of the doctrine. It is,
at least, a tribute to the greatness of Athan. that advocates of all
sides are so eager to claim him.
ATHANASIUS AND THE BIBLE. Ixxiii
Here, again, Athanasius is ' Christo-centric' With Origan, Athanasius refuses to allow evil
any substantive existence {c. Gent. §§ 2, 6, de Incarn. § 4. 5) ; evil resides in the will only, and
is the result of the abuse of its power of free choice {c. Gent. 5 and 7), The evil in the Universe
is mainly the work of demons, who have aggravated the consequences of human sin also
{de Incarn. 52. 4). On the other hand, the evil does not extend beyond the sphere of personal
agency, and the Providence of God (upon which Athanasius insists with remarkable frequency,
especially in the de Fuga and c, Gefit. and de Incarn., also in Vtt. Anioti.) exercises untiring
care over the whole. The problem of suffering and death in the anirnal creation is not
discussed by him ; he touches very incidentally, Orat. ii. 63, on the deliverance of creation in
connection with Rom. viii. 19—21.
§. 4. Vehicles of revelation ; Scripture, the Church, Tradition.
{a) The supreme and unique revelation of God to man is in the Person of the Incarnate Son.
But though unique the Incarnation is not solitar)^ Before it there was the divine institution of
the Law and the Prophets, the former a typical anticipation {de Incarn. 40. 2) of the destined
reality, and along with the latter {ib. 12. 2 and 5) 'for all the world a holy school of the knowledge
of God and the conduct of the soul.' After it there is the history of the Hfe and teaching of
Christ and the writings of His first Disciples, left on record for the instruction of all ages. Atha-
nasius again and again applies to the Scriptures the terms diia and OecmvfvaTa (e.g. de Deer. 15,
de Incarn. 33. 3, &c. ; the latter word, which he also applies to his own martyr teachers, is, of
course, from 2 Tim. iii. 16). The implications of this as bearing on the literal exactness of Scrip-
ture he nowhere draws out. His strongest language {de Deer, ubi supra) is incidental to a con-
troversial point : on Ps. Iii. (hii.) 2, he maintains that ' there is no hyperbola in Scripture ; all
is strictly true,' but he proceeds on the strength of that principle to allegorise the verse he is
discussing. In c. Gent. 2, 3, he treats the account of Eden and the Fall as figurative. But
in his later writings there is, so far as I know, nothing to match this. In fact, although he
always employs the allegorical method, sometimes rather strangely (e.g. Deut. xxviii. 66, in
de Incarn. 35, Orat. ii. 19, after Irenseus, Origen, &c), we discern, especially in his later
writings, a tendency toward a more literal exegesis than was usual in the Alexandrian school. 1
His discussion, e.g., of the sinlessness of Christ {c. Apol. i. 7, 17, ii. 9, 10) contrasts in this
respect with that of his master Alexander, who appeals, following Origen's somewhat startling
allegorical application, to Prov. xxx. 19, a text nowhere used by Ath. in this way (Thdt.
H.E. i. 4). This is doubtless largely due to the pressure of the controversy with the Arians,
who certainly had more to gain than their opponents from the prevalent unhistorical methods
of exegesis, as we see from the use made by them of 2 Cor. iv. 1 1 at Nicsea, and of Prov.
viii. 22 throughout s. Accordingly Athanasius complains loudly of their exegesis {Ep. yEg. 3 — 4,
cf Orat. i. 8, 52), and insists (id. i. 54, cf already de Deer. 14) on the primary necessity of
always conscientiously studying the circumstances of time and place, the person addressed,
the subject matter, and purpose of the writer, in order not to miss the true sense. This rule
is the same as applies {de Sent. Dion. 4) to the interpretation of any writings whatever, and
carries with it the strict subordination of the allegorical to the historical sense, contended for
by the later school of Antioch, and now accepted by all reasonable Christians (see Kihn in
Wetzer-Hergenrother's Kirchefi-Lex. vol. i. pp. 955 — 959, who calls the Antiochene exegesis
'certainly a providential phenomenon;' also supra, p. xxviii., note i).
{b) The Canon of Scripture accepted by Athanasius has long been known from the
fragments of the thirty-ninth Festal Letter (Easter, 367). The New Testament Canon com-
prises all the books received at the present day, but in the older order, viz.. Gospels, Acts,
Catholic Epistles, Pauhne Epistles (Hebrews expressly included as S. Paul's between Thess. and
Tim.), Apocalypse. The Old Testament canon is remarkable in several ways. The number
of books is 22, corresponding to the Alexandrian Jewish reckoning, not to the (probably)
older Jewish or Talmudic reckoning of 24 (the rolls of Ruth and Lam. counted separately, and
with the Hagiographa). This at once excludes from the Canon proper the so-called
'Apocrypha,' with the exception of the additions to Daniel, and of Baruch and 'the
Epistle,' which are counted as one book with Jeremiah. The latter is also the case
with Lamentations, while on the other hand the number of 22 is preserved by the reckoning
of Ruth as a separate book from Judges to make up for the exclusion of Esther. This
last point is archaic, and brings Athanasius into connection with Mehto (171 a.d.),
who gives (Eus. H.E. iv. 26. 14, see also vol. i, p. 144, note i, in this series) a Canon
which he has obtained by careful enquiry in Palestine. This Canon agrees with that of
Athanasius except with regard to the order assigned to ' Esdras' (i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah,
5 Athanasius is not always innocent of the method of which he complains ; e.g. when he uses Isa. i. ii, n-X-^pijs etfit, as a proof
of the Uivine Perfection.
Ixxiv PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IV., § 4.
placed by M. at the end), to 'the twelve in one book' (placed by M. after Jer.), and Daniel
(placed by M. before Ezekiel). Now, Esther is nowhere mentioned in the N.T., and the
Rabbinical discussions as to whether Esther ' defiled the hands ' {i.e. was ' canonical') went on
to the time of R. Akiba (ti35), an older, and even of R. Juda 'the holy' (150 — 210), a
younger, contemporary of Melito (see Wildeboer, Ontstawi van den Kanon, pp. 58, sq., 65, &c.).
The latter, therefore, may represent the penultimate stage in the history of the Hebrew canon
before its close in the second century, (doubted by Bleek, Einl. s, § 242, but not unlikely).
Here, then, Ath. represents an earlier stage of opinion than Origen (Eus. H.E. vi. 25), who
gives the finally fixed Hebrew Canon of his own time, but puts Esther at the end. As to the
number of books, Athan. agrees with Josephus, Melito, Origen, and with Jerome, who, however,
knows of the other reckoning of 24 ('nonnuUi' in Frol. Gal.). Athansius enumerates, as
'outside the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us,'
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, and Tobit, as well as what is called the Teaching of
the Apostles and the Shepherd. In practice, however, he quotes several of the latter as
' Scripture' (Wisdom repeatedly so, see index to this vol.) ; ' The Shepherd ' is ' most profitable,'
and quoted for the Unity of the Creator (and cf. de Deer. 4), but not as ' Scripture ;' the
' Didache' is not used by him unless the Syntagma {vide supra, p. lix.) be his genuine work.
He also quotes i Esdras for the praise of Truth, and 2 Esdras once, as a ' prophet.' ' Daniel '
r includes Susanna and Bel and the Dragon.
{c) On the sufficiency of Scripture for the establishment of all necessary doctrine Athan-
asius insists repeatedly and emphatically {c. Gent, i, de Incarn. 5, de Deer. 32, Vit. Ant. 16,
&c., &c.); and he follows up precept by example. 'His works are a continuous appeal to
Scripture.' There is no passage in his writings which recognises tradition as supplementing
Scripture, i.e., as sanctioning articles of faith not contained in Scripture. Tradition is recog-
nised as authoritative in two ways : (i) Negatively, in the sense that doctrines which are novel
2^0. prima ^acie condemned by the very fact {de Deer. 7, note 2, ib. 18, Orat. i. 8, 10, ii. 34, 40,
de Syn. 3, 6, 7, and Letter 59, § 3); and (2) positively, as furnishing a guide to the sense
of Scripture (see references in note on Orat. iii. 58, end of ch. xxix.). In otherwords, tradition
with Athanasius is a formal, not a material, source of doctrine. His language exemplifies the
necessity of distinguishing, in the case of strong patristic utterances on the authority of tradition,
between different senses of the word. Often it means simply truth conveyed in Scripture, and
in that sense ' handed down ' from the first, as for example c. Apol. i. 22, ' the Gospel tradition,'
and Letter 60. 6 (cf. Cypr. Ep. 74. 10, where Scripture is ' divinae traditionis caput et origo.').
Moreover, tradition as distinct from Scripture is with Athanasius not a secret unwritten body
of teaching handed down orally ', but is to be found in the docu?Jients of antiquity and the
writings of the Fathers, such as those to whom he appeals in de Deer., &c. That ' the appeal
of Athanasius was to Scripture, that of the Arians to tradition ' (Gwatkin) is an overstatement,
in part supported by the pre-Nicene history of the word Sfioova-iov {supra, p. xxxi. sq.). The
rejection of this word by the Antiochene Council (in 268-9) i^ met by Athanasius, de Synod.
43, sqq., partly by an appeal to still older witnesses in its favour, parly by the observation (§45)
that ' writing in simplicity [the Fathers] arrived not at accuracy concerning the ofioovcriov, but
spoke of the word as they understood it,' an argument strangely like that of the Homoeans
(Creed of Nike, ib. § 30) that the Fathers [of Niccea~\ adopted the word ' in simplicity.'
{d) Connected with the function and authority of tradition is that of the Church. On the
essential idea of the Church there is little or nothing of definite statement. The term * Catholic
Church ' is of course commonly used, both of the Church as a whole, and of the orthodox body
in this or that place. The unity of the Church is emphatically dwelt on in the opening of the
encyclical written in the name of Alexander {infr., p. 69 and supr., p. xvi.) as the reason
for communicating the deposition of Arius at Alexandria to the Church at large. ' The joyful
mother of children ' {Exp. in Ps. cxiii. 9) is interpreted of the Gentile Church, * made to keep
house,' are tov Kvpiov 'dvoiKov (xovcra, joyful ' bccause her children are saved through faith in
Christ,' whereas those of the 'synagogue' are ana^Keia Trapabedofxeva : the 'strong city' ttoXis
7r€pioxns and ' Edom ' of Ps. Ix. 1 1 are likewise interpreted of the Church as gathered from all
nations ; similarly the Ethiopians of Ps. Ixxxvii, 4 (where the de Tit. pss. gives a quite different
and more allegorical sense, referring the verse to baptism). The full perfection of the Church
is referred by Athanasius not to the (even ideal) Church on earth but to the Church in heaven.
The kingdom of God ' (Matt. vi. 33) is explained as ' the enjoyment of the good things of the
' The idea of a mysterious unwritten tradition is a legacy
of Gnosticism to the Church. Irenseus, in order to meet the
Gnostic appeal to a supposed unwritten Apostolic tradition, con-
fronts it with the consistency of the public and normal teaching
of the Churches everywhere, of which the Roman Church is a con-
venient microcosm or compendium. The idea of a ■trapa&orri.';
aypaipoi is adopted by Clement and Origen, and passes from the
latter to Ensebius, and to the Cappadocian Fathers(Basil de S/. S.
27, applies it only to practical details), Epiphanius, and later
writers. Details in Harnack ii. go, note, cf. Salmon, InfaUibility,
Lect. ix. On the somewhat different subject of the 'DiscipUna
Arcani,' se° Her5:og-Pliit, s.v. ' Arkan-Disciplin
1
ATHANASIUS ON THE CHURCH: COUNCILS. Ixxv
future, namely the contemplation and knowledge of God so far as man's soul is capable of it/
while the city of Ps. Ixxxvii. i — 3 is 17 avco 'UpovaaXrifj. in the de Titulis, but in the Expositio the
Church glorified by * the indwelling of the Only-begotten.' In all this we miss any decisive
utterance as to the doctrinal authority of the Church except in so far as the recognition of such
authority is involved in what has been cited above ia favour of tradition. It may be said that
the conditions which lead the mind to throw upon the Church the weight of responsibility for
what is beUeved were absent in the case of Athanasius as indeed in the earlier Greek Church
generally.
But Athanasius was far from undervaluing the evidence of the Church's tradition. The
organ by which the tradition of the Church does its work is the teaching function of her
■officers, especially of the Episcopate {de Syn. 3, &c.). But to provide against erroneous teaching
on the part of bishops, as well as to provide for the due administration of matters affecting
the Church generally, and for ecclesiastical legislation, some authority beyond that of the
individual bishop is necessary. This necessity is met, in the Church as conceived by Athanasius,
in two ways, firstly by Councils, secondly in the pre-eminent authority of certain sees which
exercise some sort of jurisdiction over their neighbours. Neither of these resources of Church
organisation meets us, in Athanasius, in a completely organised shape. A word must be said
about each separately, then about their correlation.
(a) Synods. Synods as a part of the machinery of the Church grew up spontaneously. The
meeting of the ' Apostles and Elders ' at Jerusalem (Acts xv.) exemplifies the only way in which
a practical resolution on a matter affecting a number of persons with independent rights can
possibly be arrived at, viz., by mutual discussion and agreement. Long before the age of
Athanasius it had been recognised in the Church that the bishops were the persons exclusively
■entitled to represent their flocks for such a purpose ; in other words, Councils of bishops had
come to constitute the legislative and judicial body in the Church (Eus. V.C. i. 51). Both of
these functions, and especially the latter, involved the further prerogative of judging of doctrine,
as in the case of Paul of Samosata. But the whole system had grown up out of occasional
emergencies, and no recognised laws existed to define the extent of conciliar authority, or the
relations between one Council and another should their decisions conflict. Not even the area
covered by the jurisdiction of a given Council was defined {Can. Nic. 5). We see a Synod at
Aries deciding a case affecting Africa, and reviewing the decision of a previous Synod at Rome ;
a Council at Tyre trying the case of a bishop of Alexandria ; a Council at Sardica in the West
deposing bishops in the East, and restoring those whom Eastern Synods had deposed ; we find
Acacius and his fellows deposed at Seleucia, then in a few weeks deposing their deposers
at Constantinople; Meletius appointed and deposed by the same Synod at Antioch in 361,
and in the following year resuming his see without question. All is chaos. The extent to which
a Synod succeeds in enforcing its decisions depends on the extent to which it obtains de facto
recognition. The canons of the Council of Antioch (341) are accepted as Church law, while
its creeds are condemned as Arian {de Syn. 22 — 25).
We look in vain for any statement of principle on the part of Athanasius to reduce this
confusion to order. The classical passage in his writings is the letter he has preserved from
Julius of Rome to the Eastern bishops {Apol. c. Ar. 20 — 35). The Easterns insist strongly on
the authority of Councils, in the interests of their deposition of Athanasius, &c., at Tyre.
Julius can only reply by invoking an old-established custom of the Church, ratified, he says, at
Nicasa {Can. 5 ?), that the decisions of one Council may be revised by another; a process which
leads to no finality. The Sardican canons of three years later drew up, for judicial purposes
only, a system of procedure, devolving on Julius (or possibly on the Roman bishop for the time
being) the duty of deciding, upon the initiative of the parties concerned, whether in the case of
a deposed bishop a new trial of the case was desirable, and permitting him to take part in such
new trial by his deputies. But Athanasius never alludes to any such procedure, nor to the
canons in question. (Compare above, pp. xlii., xlvi.).
The absence of any a priori law relating to the authority of Synods applies to general as
well as to local Councils. The conception of a general Council did not give rise to Nicsea, but
vice . versa (see above, p. xvii.). The precedent for great Councils had already been set
at Antioch (268-9) and Aries (314); the latter in fact seems to be indirectly called by
S. Augustine plenarium universce. ecclesia concilium ; but the widely representative character of
the Nicene Council, and the impressive circumstances under which it met, stamped upon it from
the first a recognised character of its own. Again and again {de Beer. 4, 27, Orat. i. 7, Ep.
y£§. 5, &c., &c.) Athanasius presses the Arians with their rejection of the decision of a
* world-wide' Council, contrasting it (e.g. de Syn. 21) with the numerous and indecisive Coun-
ixxvi
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IV., § 4.
cils held by them. He protests {^Ep. ^g. 5, To?>i. ad Ant., &c.) against the idea that any new
creed is necessary or to be desired in addition to the Nicene. But in doing so, he does not
suggest by a syllable that the Council was formally and a priori infallible, independently of the
character of its decision as faithfully corresponding to the tradition of the Apostles. Its
authority is secondary to that of Scripture (de Syn. 6, sub. fin.), and its scriptural character is
its justification {ib.). In short, Mr. Gwatkin speaks within the mark when he disclaims for
Athan. any mechanical theory ^ of conciliar infallibility. To admit this candidly is not to
depreciate, but to acknowledge, the value of the great Synod of Nicsea ; and to acknowledge
it, not on the technical grounds of later ecclesiastical law, but on grounds which are those of
Athanasius himself. (On the general subject see D.C.A. 475 — 484, and Hatch, B.L. vii.)
(3) Jurisdiction of bishops over bishops. The fully-developed and organised ' patriarchal '
system does not meet us in the Nicene age. The bishops of important towns, however, exercise
a very real, though not definable authority over their neighbours. This is especially true of
Imperial residences. The migration of Eusebius to Nicomedia and afterwards to Constanti-
nople broke through the time-honoured rule of the Church, but set the precedent commonly
followed ever afterwards. In Egypt, although the name ' patriarch ' was as yet unheard, the
authority of the Bishop of Alexandria was almost absolute. The name ' archbishop ' is here used
for the first time. It is first applied apparently to Meletius {Apol. Ar. 71) in his list of clergy,
but at a later date (about 358) to Athanasius in a contemporary inscription (see p. 564', note i).
At the beginning of his episcopate {supra, p. xxxvii.) we find him requested to ordain in
a diocese of Upper Egypt by its bishop. He sends bishops on deputations [Fest. Ind. xxv., &c.),
and exercises ordinary jurisdiction over bishops and people of Libya and Pentapolis (cf. refer-
ence to Synesius, supr., p. Ixii.). This was a condition of things dating at least from the time
of Dionysius (p. 178, note 2). In particular he had practically the appointment of bishops for
all Egypt, so that in the course of his long episcopate all the Egyptian sees were mannetl by his
faithful adherents (cf. p, 493). The mention of Dionysius suggests the question of the
relation of the see of Alexandria to that of Rome, and of the latter to the Church generally. On
the former point, what is necessary will be said in the Introd. to the de Sent. Dion. With
regard to the wider question, Athanasius expresses reverence for that bishopric ' because it is
an Apostolic throne,' and ' for Rome, because it is the metropolis of Romania ' (p. 282).
That is his only utterance on the subject. Such reverence ought, he says, to have secured
Liberius from the treatment to which he had been subjected. The language cited excludes
the idea of any divinely-given headship of the Church vested in the Roman bishop, for his object
is to magnify the outrageous conduct of Constantius and the Arians. Still less can anything be
elicited from the account given by Ath. of the case of the Dionysii, or of his own relations to
successive Roman bishops. He speaks of them as his beloved brothers and fellow-ministers
(e.g., p. 489) and cordially welcomes their sympathy and powerful support, without any
thought of jurisdiction. But he furnishes us with materials, in the letter of Julius, for estimating
not his own view of the Roman see, but that held by its occupant. The origin of the pro-
ceedings was the endeavour of the Easterns to procure recognition at Rome and in the West
for their own nominee to the bishopric of Alexandria. They had requested Julius to hold
a Council, 'and to be himself the judge if he so pleased' {Apol. c. Ar. 20). This was
intended to frighten Athanasius, but not in the least, as the sequel shews, to submit the
decisions of a Council to revision by a single bishop. Julius summoned a Council as described
above (p. xliii.), and at the end of a long period of delay and controversy sent a letter
expressing his view of the case to the Orientals. This document has been already discussed
(p. xliv.). It forms an important landmark in the history of papal claims, standing at least
as significantly in contrast with those of the successors of Julius, as with those of his
predecessors.
(y) Bishops and Councils. The superiority of councils to single bishops (including those
» What is conspicuously true of the Second General Council
is in reality not less true of the First. Its high authority to later
ages is due not to its formal character as a council, but to the
character of its work ; the consent of the Church, and that not
readily given, but as the result of a long process of searching and
sifting, has given to it its ' irreformable ' authority. Its authority is
expressly put on a par with that of the A ntiochene Synod ofc. 269,
by Ath. de Syn. 43 (consult the whole discussion, pp. 473, 475, &c.).
Short of a council which should include every bishop or the entire
Church, in unanimous agreement, — an impossible contingency, —
the claims of any given council to be truly ecumenical are relative,
not absolute ; and no consistent theory is possible of the conditions
under which a council could i>v virtue of its constitution claim
infallibility for its decisions. The supposed infallibility of general
councils lies in reality outside them, in the authority which sanc-
tions and consecrates their decisions. According to the precedent
of Nicaea this is the Church ' diffusive ' (cf. p. 489, and Pusey,
Councils, p. 225, j^.), and such consent, again, must necessarily be
partial and relative. If a more tangible and expeditious theory is
wanted, we have it in the Roman system, according to which
a council is infallible if ratified by the Pope. This at once puts
all such councils, whether local or general, on one level, and
affords a ready criterion. In other words, the only consistent
(mechanical) theory of the infallibility of councils is one which
makes councils superfluous. If such a theory had been known to
the Church in the age of councils, the councils would not have
been held.
THEOLOGY OF ATHANASTUS. THE UNITY IN TRINITY. Ixxvii
of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch) was questioned by no one in this age. Julius claims the
support, not of authority inherent in his see, but of canons, and on the basis of them claims
a voice in matters affecting the Church at large, not in his own name, but in that of 'us
all, that so a just sentence might proceed from alV {Apol. c. Ar. 35). Again, just as the
judgment of his predecessor Melchiades and his council was revised at Aries in 314
(Augustin. Ep. 105. 8), so the case of Athanasius and Marcellus was reheard at the Council
of Sardica three years after the decision of Julius and his council. The council was the
supreme organ of the Church for legislative, judicial, and doctrinal purposes; had any other
of superior or even equal rank been recognised, or had the authority of councils themselves
been defined a priori by a system of Church law, the confusion of the fourth century
would not have arisen. Whether or no the age would have gained, we at least should have
been the losers.
§ 5. Content of Revelation. God Three in One and the Incarnation.
To dwell at length on the theology of Athanasius under this head is unnecessary
here, not because there is little to say, but partly because what there is to say has been to
some extent anticipated above, §§ 2, 3, and ch, ii. pp. xxxii., xxxvi., partly because the history of
his life and work is the best exposition of what he believed and taught. That his theology on
these central subjects was profoundly moulded by the Nicene formula is (to the present writer
at least) the primary fact (see ch. ii. §3 (i), and (2) b). This of course presupposes that
the Nicene faith found in him a character and mind prepared to become its interpreter and
embodiment; and that this was so his pre-Nicene writings sufficiently shew.
For instance, his progressive stress on the Unity of the Godhead in Father, Son,
and Spirit is but the following up of the thought expressed de Incarn. 17. i iv /ixoVw rm iavrov
iJarpl 6\os wi> Kara Travra. It may be noted that he argues also from the idea of the Trinity to
the coessential Godhead of the Spirit, ad Scrap, i. 28, sq., Tpiiis Se eVrti/ ovx eas ovofiaros /lovov . . .
aWa dXrjdfiq kui V7rup|et rpids' . . . elndTticrav ndXiv . , . rpids eariv ^ 8vds ; and that he meets the
difficulty (see infra, p. 438, ten lines from end, also Petav. Trin. VII. xiv.) of differentiating
the relation of the Spirit to the Father from the yewriais of the Son by a confession of ignorance
and a censure upon those who assume that they can search out the deep things of God
{il>. 17 — 19). The principle might be applied to this point which is laid down de Deer. 11,
that 'an act' belonging to the essence of God, cannot, by virtue of the simplicity of the
Divine Nature, be more than one: the 'act' therefore of divine -yewiyo-ts (the nature of which
we do not know) cannot apply to the Spirit but only to the Son. But I do not recollect any
passage in which Athanasius draws this conclusion from his own premises. The language of
Athanasius on the procession of the Spirit is unstudied. In Ext> Fid. 4, he appears to adopt
the 'procession' of the Spirit from the Father through the Son (after Dionysius, see Sent.
Dion. 17). In Scrap, i. 2, 20, 32, iii. i, he speaks of the Spirit as 'L^iov tov Aoyov, just as
the Word is I'fiior tov narpdy. His language on the subject, expressing the idea common to
East and West (under the cloud of logomachies which envelop the subject j might possibly
furnish the basis of an ' eirenicon ' between the two separated portions of Christendom. In
explaining the ' theophanies' of the Old Testament, Athanasius takes a position intermediate
between that of the Apologists, &c. {supr., p. xxiii.) who referred them to the Word, and that
of Augustine who referred them to Angels only. According to Athanasius the 'Angel' was
and was not the Word : regarded as visible he was an Angel simply, but the Voice was the
Divine utterance through the Word (see Orat. iii. 12, 14; dc Syn 27, Anath 15, note; also
Scrap, i. 14).
Lastly, it must again be insisted that in his polemic against Arianism Athanasius is
centrally soteriological. It is unnecessary to collect passages in support of what will be fully
appreciated only after a thorough study of the controversial treatises. The essence of his
position is comprised in his paraphrase of St. Peter's address to the Jews, Orat. ii. 16, ^., or
in the argument, ib. 67, sqq., i. 43, and iii. 13. With regard to the Incarnation, it may be
admitted that Athanasius uses language which might have been modified had he had later con-
troversies in view. His common use of avdpanos for the Manhood of Christ (see below, p. 83)
might be alleged by the Nestorian, his comparison of it to the vesture of the High
Priest {Orat. i. 47, ii. 8, see note there) by the Apollinarian or Monophysite partisan. But at
least his use of either class of expressions shews that he did not hold the doctrine associated
in later times with the other. Moreover, while from first to last he is explicitly clear as to the
seat of personahty in Christ, which is uniformly assigned to the Divine Logos ^p. 40, note 2
IXXVlll
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IV., § 5.
and reff.), the integrity of the manhood of Christ is no less distinctly asserted (cf. de Incarn. 18.
I, 21. 7). He uses o-aj/xa and avdpanos indifferently during the earlier stages of the conflict,
ignoring or failing to notice the peculiarity of the Luciano-Arian Christology. But from 362
onward the full integrity of the Saviour's humanity, aap^ and fvx^ XoyiK^ or nveiixa, is
energetically asserted against the theory of Apollinarius and those akin to it 3 (cf. Letters
59 and 60, and c. ApolL). Some corollaries of this doctrine must now be mentioned.
The question of the sinlessness of Christ is not discussed by Athanasius ex professo until the
controversy with Apollinarianism. In the ealrlier Arian controversy the question was in reality
involved, partly by the Arian theory of the rpeTrrdr??? of the Word, partly by the correlated
theory of ttpokottt} (cf. 0>-at. if. 6,sqg.), and Athanasius instinctively falls back on the considera-
tion that the Personality of the Son, if Divine, is necessarily sinless. In c. Apoll. i. 7, 17, ii. 10
the question is more thoroughly analysed. The complete psychological identity of Christ's
human nature with our own is maintained along with the absolute w,9r«/ identity of His will
(ee\r](ns, the determination of will, not the OeXriaa ovaidides or volitional faculty) with the Divine
will.
With regard to the human knowledge of Christ, the texts Mark xiii. 32, Luke ii. 52, lie at
the foundation of his discussion Oral, iii, 42 — 53. The Arians appealed to these passages to
support the contention that the Word, or Son of God in His Divine nature, was ignorant of ' the
Day,' and advanced in knowledge. The whole argument of Athan. in reply is directed to shewing
that these passages apply not to the Word or Son in Himself, but to the Son Incarnate.
He knows as God, is ignorant as man. Omniscience is the attribute of Godhead, ignorance
is proper to man. The Incarnation was not the sphere of advancement to the Word, but of
humiliation and condescension ; but the Manhood advanced in wisdom as it did in stature
also, for advance belongs to man. That is the decisive and clear-cut position of Athanasius
on this subject (which the notes there vainly seek to accommodate to the rash dogmatism of the
schools). Athanasius appeals to the utterances of Christ which imply knowledge transcending
human limitations in order to shew that such knowledge, or rather all knowledge, was
possessed by the Word; in other words such utterances belong to the class of ' divine ' not to
that of 'human' phenomena in the life of Christ. So far as His human nature was concerned.
He assumed its limitations of knowledge equally with all else that belongs to the physical and
mental endowments of man. Why then was not Divine Omniscience exerted by Him at all
times ? This question is answered as all questions must be which arise out of any limitation
of the Omnipotence of God in the Manhood of Christ. It was ' for our profit, as I at least
think' {ib. 48). The very idea of the Incarnation is that of a limiting oi the Divine under
human conditions, the Divine being manifested in Christ only so far as the Wisdom of God
has judged it necessary in order to carry out the purpose of His coming. In other words,
Athanasius regarded the ignorance of Christ as ' economical ' only in so far as the Incarnation
is itself an oiKouofjiia, a measured revelation, at once a veiling and a manifestation, of all that is
in God. That the divine Omniscience wielded in the man Christ Jesus an adequate instru-
ment for its own manifestation Athanasius firmly holds : the exact extent to which such
manifestation was carried, the reserve of miraculous power or knowledge with which that
Instrument was used, must be explained not by reference to the human mind, will, or character
of Christ, but to the Divine Will and Wisdom which alone has both effected our redemption
and knows the secrets of its bringing about. With Athanasius, we may quote St. Paul,
Tis tyvci) voiji' Kvpiov,
It may be observed before leaving this point that Athanasius takes occasion (§ 43,
^n., cf. 45) to distinguish two senses of the words 'the Son,' as referring on the one hand
to the eternal, on the other to the human existence of Christ. To the latter he Umits
Mark xiii. 32 : the point is of importance in view of his relation to Marcellus (supra, p.xxxvi.).
As a further corollary of the Incarnation we may notice his frequent use {Orat. iii. 14, 29,
33, iv. 32, c. ApolL i. 4, 12, 21) of the word ^eoroKoj as an epithet or as a name for the
Virgin Mary. The translation 'Mother of God' is of course erroneous. 'God-bearer'.
(Gottes-barerin), the literal equivalent, is scarcely idiomatic English. The perpetual virginity
of Mary is maintained incidentally {c. Apoll. i. 4), but there is an entire absence in his writings
not only of w^orship of the Virgin, but of ' Mariology,' i.e., of the tendency to assign to her
3 The doctrine of Athanasius is, not formally but none the
less really, the doctrine of Chalcodon, which again stands or falls
together with that of Nicsea. Like the latter, it transcends the
power of human thought to do more than state it in terms which
exclude the (Nestorian and Moiiophysite) alternatives. The Man
Jesus Christ is held to have lacked nothing that constitutes
personality in man ; the human personality which therefore
belongs to it ideally, being in fact merged in the Divine per-
sonality of the Son. The 'impersonality,' as it is sometimes
called, of Christ qu& man is therefore better spoken of as His
Divine Personality. Personality and will are correlated but not
identical ideas.
ATHAN. ON THE COROLLARIES OF THE INCARNATION. Ixxix
a personal agency, or any peculiar place, in the work of Redemption (Gen. iii. 15, Fu/^.).
Further, the argument of Orat i. 51 /«., that the sending of Christ in the flesh >r f/ie
first tifiie (XotTTOj/) liberated human nature from sin, and enabled the requirement of God's
law to be fulfilled in man (an argument strictly within the lines of Rom. viii. 3), would be
absolutely wrecked by the doctrine of the freedom of Mary from original sin ('immaculate con-
ception'). If that doctrine be held, sin was ' condemned in the flesh' {i.e., first deposed from
its place in human nature, see Gifford or Meyer-Weiss in loc), not by the sending of Christ, but
by the congenital sinlessness of Mary. If the Arians had only known of the latter doctrine,
they would have had an easy reply to that powerful passage.
§ 6. Derivative doctrines. Grace and the Means of Grace ; the Christian Life ; the last things.
The idea of Grace is important to the theological system of Athanasius, in view of the
central place occupied in that system by the idea of restoration and new creation as the specific
work of Christ upon His fellow-men {supra, § 2, cf. Orat. ii. 56, Exp. in Pss. xxxiii. 2, cxviii.
5, LXX.). But, in common with the Greek Fathers generally, he does not analyse its
operation, nor endeavour to fix its relation to free will (cf. Orat. i. 37 fiti., iii. 25 sub fin.).
The divine predestination relates (for anything that Ath. says) not to individuals so much as to
the Purpose of God, before all ages, to repair the foreseen evil of man's fall by the Incarnation
{Oral. ii. 75, sq.). On the general subject of Sacraments and their efficacy, he says little or
nothing. The initiatory rite of Baptism makes us sons of God {de Deer. 31, cf. Orat. i. 37
ut supra), and is the only complete renewal to be looked for in this Jife, Serap. iv. 13). It i>
accompanied {de Trifi. et Sp. S. 7) by confession of faith in the Trinity, and the baptism
administered by Arians who do not really hold this faith is therefore in peril of losing its value
{Orat. ii. i,2,fin.\ The grace of the Spirit conferred at baptism will be finally withdrawn from
the Avicked at the last judgment {Exp. in Ps. Ixxv. 13, LXX.). In the de Trin. et Sp. S. 2t
baptism is coupled with the imposition of hands as one rite. On the Eucharist there is an
important passage {ad Serap. iv. 19), which must be given in full. He has been speaking of
sin against the Holy Spirit, which latter name he applies [see above, ch. iii. § i (22)] to the
Saviour's Divine Personality. He proceeds to illustrate this by John vi. 62 — 64.
' For here also He has used both terms of Himself, flesh and spirit ; and He distinguished the spirit from what
is of the flesh in order that they might believe not only in what was visible in Him, but in what was invisible, and so
understand that what He says is not fleshly, but spiritual. For for how many would the body suffice as food, for it to
become meat even for the whole world? But this is why He mentioned the ascending of the Son of Man into
heaven ; namely, to draw them off from their corporeal idea, and that from thenceforth they might understand that
■the aforesaid flesh was heavenly from above, and spiritual meat, to be given at His hands. For ' wiiat I have said
unto you,' says He, ' is spirit and life ; ' as much as to say, ' what is manifested, and to be given for the salvation
of the world, is the flesh which I wear. But this, and the blood from it, shall be given to you spiritually at My
hands as meat, so as to be imparted spiritually in each one, and to become for all a preservative to resurrection of
life eternal. '
Beyond this he does not define the relation of the outward and visible in the Eucharist
to the spiritual and inward. The reality of the Eucharistic gift is insisted on as strongly as its
spirituality in such passages z.?, ad Max. {Letter 61) 2 sub fin., and the comment on Matt. vii. 6
(Migne xxvii. 1380), 'See to it, therefore, Deacon, that thou do not administer to the unworthy
the purple of the sinless body,' and the protest of the Egyptian bishops {Apol. c. Ar. 5) that
their churches 'are adorned only by the blood of Christ and by the pious worship of H^m.'
The Holy Table is expressly stated to have been made of wood {Hist. Ar. 56), and was
situated {Apol. Fug) in a space called the XepaT^iov. The Eucharist was celebrated in most
places every Sunday, but not on week-days {Apol. c. Ar. 11). But in Alexandria we hear of it
being celebrated on a Friday on one occasion, and this was apparently a normal one {Apol. Fug.
24, Apol. Const. 25). To celebrate the Eucharist was the office of the bishop or presbyter
{Apol. c. Ar. 11). Ischyras {supr. p. xxxviii.) was held by Athanasius to be a layman only, and
therefore incapable of offering the Eucharist. The sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist ;<= not
touched upon, except in the somewhat strange fragment (Migne xxvi. 1259) from an Oratio de
defunctis, which contains the words v 5«' y« avai\iaKTOi Ovaia e^ikaanos. He insists on the finality
•of the sacrifice of the Cross, Orat. ii. 9, at fih yap Kara vofiou . . . ovk elxov t6 marov, Kaff Tjnepav
napepxofJifvaf rj de tov Scor^pos dvaia ana^ yevofiivrj TtTeXfiaxe to irav. On repentance and the
confession of sins there is little to quote. He strongly asserts the efficacy of repentance, and
explains Heb. vi. 4, of the unique cleansing and restoring power of baptism {Serap. iv. 13, as
cited above.) A catena on Jeremiah preserves a fragment [supra, ch. iii. § i (38)],
which compares the ministry of the priest in baptism to that in confession : ovrw koi a
Ixxx
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER V.
f^ofjioXnyovfievos (V fieravniq Si'a tov Upems \afi^avei rrjv a(\)«Tiv ;(a/3iTt XpicTTOv. Of COmpulsory Con-
fession, or even of this ordinance as an ordinary element of the Christian life, we read nothing.
On the Christian ministry again there is little direct teaching. The ordinations by the
presbyter Colluthus {Apol. Ar. it, 12) are treated as null. The letter (49) to Dracontius
contains vigorous and beautiful passages on the responsibility of the Ministry. On the
principles of Christian conduct there is much to be gathered from obiter dicta in the writings
of Athanasius. His description (cf. supra, p. xlviii.) of the revival of religious life at
Alexandria in 346, and the exhortations in the Easter letters, are the most conspicuous
passages for this purpose. In particular, he insists (e.g., p. 67) on the necessity of a holy
life and pure mind for the apprehension of divine things, and especially for the study of
tlie Scriptures. He strongly recommends the discipline of fasting, in which, as compared with
other churches (Rome especially), the Alexandrian Christians were lax {Letter 12), but he
warns them in his first Easter letter to fast ' not only with the body, but also with the soul.'
He also dwells {Letter 6) on the essential difference of spirit between Christian festivals and
Jewish observance of days. Christ is the true Festival, embracing the whole of the Christian
life {Letters 5, 14). He lays stress on love to our neighbour, and especially on kindness to
the poor {Letter \. 11, Hist. Ar. 61, Vit. Ant. 17, 30). On one important practical point he
is very emphatic : ' Persecution is a device of the devil ' {Hist. Ar. 33). This summary
judgment was unfortunately less in accordance with the spirit of the times than with the Spirit
of Christ.
The ascetic teaching of Athanasius must be reserved for the introduction to the Vita
Antoni (cf. Letters 48, 49, also above, p. xlviii.). His eschatology calls for discussion in
connection with the language of the de Lncarnatione, and will be briefly noticed in the intro-
duction to that tract. With regard to prayers for the departed, he distinguishes (on Luke
xiii. 21, &c., Migne xxvii. 1404) the careless, whose friends God will move to assist them with
their prayers, from the utterly wicked who are beyond the help of prayer.
CHAPTER V.
Chronology and Tables.
§ I. Sources, (i) The Festal Letters of Athanasius with their Index and the Historia Acephata
constitute our primary source for chronological details (see below, § 2). (2) Along with these
come the chronological notices scattered up and down the other writings of Athanasius. These
are of course of the utmost importance, but too often lack definiteness. (3) The chronological
data in the fifth-century historians, headed by Socrates, are a mass of confusion, and have been
a source of confusion ever since, until the discovery of the primary sources. No. (i) mentioned
above. They must, therefore, be used only in strict subordination to the latter. (4) More
valuable but less abundant secondary notices are to be derived from the Life of Pachomius,
from the letter of Ammon {infra, p. 487), and from other writers of the day. (5) For the
movements of the Emperors the laws in the Codex Theodosianus (ed. Hanel in Corpus Juris
Ante-Justiniani) give many dates, but the text is not in a satisfactory condition.
(6) Modern discussions. The conflicting attempts at an Athanasian chronology prior to
the discovery of the Festal Letters are tabulated in the Appendix to Newman's Arians, and
discussed by him in his introduction to the Historical Tracts (Oxf. Lib. Fathers). The notes
to Dr. Bright's article Athanasius in D.C.B., and his introduction to the Hist. Writings
of S. Ath., may be profitably consulted, as also may Larsow's Fest-briefe (Leipz., 1852), with
useful calendar information by Dr. J, G. Galle, the veteran professor of Astronomy at Breslau,
and Sievers on the Hist. Aceph. {Supr. ch. i. § 3.)
But by far the most valuable chronological discussions are those of Prof Gwatkin in his
Studies of Arianisfn. He has been the first to make full use of the best data, and more-
over gives very useful lists of the great officials of the Empire and of the movements of the
Eastern Emperors. Mr. Gwatkin's results were criticised in the Church Quarterly Review,
vol. xvi. pp. 392 — 398, 1883, by an evidently highly-qualified hand^ The criticisms of the
Reviewer have been most carefully weighed by the present writer, although they quite fail to
shake him in his general agreement with Mr. Gwatkin's results.
i
I The candid, but friendly, and often just, criticisms on Mr.
Gwatl^in's book do not concern us here. But the Reviewer's
chronological strictures are his weakest point : he uses his texts
without criticism, and falls far short of Mr. Gwatkin's standard
of searching historical method.
CHRONOLOGY. PRINCIPLES ADOPTED. Jxxxi
For the general chronology of the period we may mention Weingarten's Zeit-tafeln (ed. 3,
1888) as useful, though not especially so for our purpose, and above all Clinton's Fasti Romani,
which, however, were drawn up in the dark ages before the discovery of the Festal Letters, and
are therefore antiquated so far as the life of Athanasius is concerned.
§ 2. Principles and Method. The determination of the leading Athanasian dates
depends mainly on the value to be assigned to the primary sources, § i (i). Reserving the fuller
discussion of these texts for the Introduction to the Letters (pp. 495 sq., 500 sq.), it will suffice to
state here what seem to be the results of an investigation of their value, (i) The Historia Ace-
phala and Festal Lndexzxt independent of each other (cf. Sievers, p. 95, misunderstood, I think,
by Mr. Gwatkin, p. 221). (2) They both belong to the generation after the death of Athanasius,
the H.A. being apparently the earlier. (3) The data as to which they agree must,
therefore, come from a source prior to either, i.e., contemporary with Athanasius. (4) In
several important particulars they are confirmed by our secondary Egyptian sources, such as the
Littler of Atnmon and Life of Fachomius. (5) They verify most of the best results arrived at
independently of them (of this below), and (6) In no case do they agree in fixing a date
which can be proved to be wrong, or which there are sound reasons for distrusting. On these
grounds I have classed the Historia and Index 2i% primary sources, and maintain that the dates
as to which the two documents agree must be accepted as certain. This principle at once
brings the doubtful points in the chronology within very moderate limits. The general chrono-
logical table, in which the dates fixed by the agreement of these sources are printed in black type,
will make this plain enough. It remains to shew that the principle adopted works out well in
detail, or in other words, that the old Alexandrian chronology, transmitted to us through the
twofold channel of the Historia and the Index, harmonises the apparent discrepancies, and
solves the difficulties, of the chronological statements of Athanasius, and tallies with the most
trustworthy information derived from other sources. In some cases it has been found desirable
to discuss points of chronology where they occur in the Life of Athanasius ; what will be
attempted here is to complete what is there passed over without thorough discussion, in
justification of the scheme adopted in our general chronological table.
§3. Applications, (a) Death of Alexaftder and Flectiofi of Athanasius. That the latter
took place on June 8, 328, is established by the agreement of our sources, together with the
numbering of the Festal Letters. Theodoret {H.F. i. 26) and others, misled by some words of
Athanasius {Apol. c. Ar. 59), handed down to later ages the statement that Alexander died five
months after the Council of Nicsea. It had long been seen that this must be a mistake
(Tillemont, vi. 736, Montfaucon, Monit.in Vit. S. Athan.) and various suggestions^ were made
as to the terminus a quo for the 'five months' mentioned by Athanasius ; that of Montfaucon
remains the most probable (see ch. ii. § 3 (i), p. xxi.). But the field was left absolutely clear
for the precise and concordant statement of our chroniclers, which, therefore, takes undisputed
possession. (Further details, supr. p. xx. sq. ; Introd. to Letters, pp. 495, 303).
(b) The first exile of Athanasius. The duration is fixed by the flist. Aceph. (see Introd.
p. 495, sq.) as two years, four months, and eleven days, and this exactly coincides with the dates
given by the Index for his departure for Tyre, July 11, 335, and his return from exile Nov. 23,
337 (not 338 ; for the Diocletian year began at the end of August). Although, therefore, the
Hist. Aceph. is not available for the date, the constructive agreement between it and the Index
is complete. But it has been contended that the year of the return from this exile must still be
placed in 338, in spite of the new evidence to the contrary. The reasons alleged are very
weak, (i) The letter of Constantine II., dated Treveri, June 17, so far from making against
the year 337, clinches the argument in its favour. Constantine is still only 'Caesar'
when he writes it (pp. 146, 272); he was proclaimed Augustus on Sep. 9, 337
{Montf. in ann. 338 tries in vain to parry this decisive objection to the later date. He appeals
to Maximin in Eus. H.E. ix. 10, but overlooks the word o-f/3a(rTos there. Is it conceivable that
a disappointed eldest son, as sensitive about his claims as Constantine was, would within so short
a time of becoming 'Augustus' be content to call himself merely 'Csesar'?) The objection as
to the distance of Treveri from Nicomedia has no weight, as we show elsewhere (p. xli., note 4) ;
Constantine might have heard of his father's death a fortnight before the date of this letter.
(2) The law {Cod. Th. X. x. 4) dated Viminacium, June 12, 338, if correctly ascribed to
•Constantius, would certainly lend plausibility to the view that it was at that tim^ that
Athanasius met Constantius at Viminacium (p. 240). But the names are so often con-
« E.g. that he died five months after his return home from the I As neither event is dated, both hypotheses render the ' five months'
■council (Tillem.), or after the reconciliation of Meletiiis QAomi.). \ useless for chronology.
VOL. IV. f
Ixxxii PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER V., § 3.
fused in MSS., and the text of the Theodosian Code requires such frequent correction, that
there is no soUd objection to set against the extremely cogent proofs (Gwatkin, p. 138) that
the law belongs to Constantine, who in that case cannot have been at Trier on June 17, 338.
As to Constantius, there is no reason against his having been in Pannonia at some time in the
summer of 337. (3) The statement of Theodoret {II.E. ii. i) that Ath. ' stayed at Treveri two
years and four months ' seems to reproduce that of the Hist. Aceph. as to the length of the
exile, and is only verbally inexact in applying it to the period actually spent in Trier. (4) The
language oi Letter 10, the Festal letter for 338, is not absolutely decisive, but §§ 3, n certainly
imply that when it was written, whether at Alexandria or elsewhere, the durance of Athanasius
was at an end. There can, we submit, be no reasonable doubt that the first exile of Athanasius
began with his departure from Alexandria on July 11, 335, and ended with his return thither
on Nov. 23, 337.
(c) Commencement of the second exile. Here again the agreement of our chronicles is-
constructive only, owing to the loss of the earlier part of the Hist. Aceph.; but it is none the
less certain. The exile ended, as everyone now admits and as both chronicles tell us, on
Paoph. 24 (Oct. 21), 346 : it lasted, according to the H.A., seven years, six months, and three
days. This carries us back to Phar. 21 (April 16), 339. Now we learn from the Index that he
left the Church of Theonas on the night of Mar. 18-19, ^"<^ from the Encyclical, 4, 5, that he
took refuge first in another church, then in some secret place till over Easter Sunday (Apr. 15)^
This fits exactly with Apr. 16 as the date of his flight to Rome. To this there is only one
serious objection, viz., that Ath. was summoned (p. 239) to Milan by Constantius after
the end of three years from his leaving Alexandria. It has been assumed (without any proof)
that this took place 'just before' the council of Sardica. As a matter of fact, Constans left
Athan. in Milan, and (apparently after his summer campaign) ordered him to follow him to
Trier, in order to travel thence to the Council. Athanasius does not state either how long he
remained at Milan, or when he was ordered to Trier ; for a chronological, inference, in oppo-
sition to explicit evidence, he furnishes no basis whatever. I agree with Mr. Gwatkin (whom his-
Reviewer quite misunderstands) in placing the Milan interview about May, 342, and the journey
from Trier to Sardica after Easter (probably later still) in 343 (Constans was in Britain in the
spring of 343, and had returned to Trier before June 30, Cod. Th. XII. i. 36, see also supr. p. xlv.).
A more reasonable objection to the statement of the Itidex is that of Dr. Bright (p. xv. note 5),
who sets against its information that Athan. fled from ' Theonas ' four days before Gregory's
arrival, the statement of the Encyclical that he left a certain church after Gregory's outrages at
Eastertide. But clearly Athan. first escaped from the church of Theonas, afterwards (between
Good Friday and Easter) from some other church {ak\r\ (KKXTja-ia), not nametl by him ('Quirinus,*
of. p. 95, note i), and finally from the City itself (Dr. Bright's arguments in favour of 340 are
vitiated in part by his placing Easter on April 9, i.e. on a Wednesday, instead of the proper
day, Sunday, Mar. 30). The date, April 16, 339, is, therefore, well established as the
beginning of the second exile, and there is no tangible evidence against it. It is, moreover,
supported by the subscription to the letter to Serapion, which stands in the stead of the Easter
letter for 340, and which states that the letter was written from Rome.
(d) Coiwcil of Sardica and death of Gregory. The confusion into which the whole
chronology of the surrounding events was thrown by the supposition (which was naturally
taken without question upon the authority of Socrates and Sozomen) that the Sardican council
met in 347, is reflected in the careful digest of opinions made by Newman {Arians,
Appendix, or better. Introduction to Hist. Treatises of S. Ath. p. xxvi. ; cf. also Hefele, Eng.
Tra., vol. 2, p. 188, sq., notes), and especially in the difficulties caused by the necessity of
placing the Council of Milan in 345 before Sardica, and the mission of Euphrates of Cologne
to Antioch as late as 348. Now the Hist. Aceph., by giving October, 346, as the date of the
return of Atlianasius from his second exile, at once challenged the received date for Sardica,
and J. D. Mansi, the learned editor of the ' Collectio Amplissima ' of the Councils, used this
fact as the key to unlock the chronological tangle of the period. He argued that the Council
of Sardica must be put back at least as early as 344 ; but the natural conservatism of learning
resisted his conclusions until the year 1852, when the Festal Letters, discovered ten years
earlier, were made available for the theological public of Europe. The date 347 was then
finally condemned. Not only did Letter 18, written at Easter, 345, refer to the Council's
decision about Easter, and Letter 19 refer to his restoration as an accomplished fact;
the Index most positively dated the synod in the year 343, which year has now taken
its place as the accepted date, although the month and duration of the assembly are still
open to doubt {Supr. p. xlv., note 6). In any case it is certain that the Easter at which the
CHRONOLOGY. SEQUEL TO SARDIC/i. Ixxxiii
deputies from Constans and the Council reached Antioch was Easter, 344. This brings us to
the question of the date of Gregory's death. Mr. Gwatkin rightly connects the Council which
deposed Stephen for his behaviour to the Western deputies, and elected Leontius, with the
issue of the ' Macrostich' creed ' three years' {^de Syn. 26) after the Council of the Dedication, i.e.,
in the summer of 344. This is our only notice of time for the Council in question, and it is
not very precise ; but the Council may fairly be placed in the early summer, which would
allow time for the necessary preliminaries after Easter, and for the meeting of the fathers at
reasonable notice. (Perhaps Stephen -^2.% promptly and infor}7ially deposed (Thdt.) after Easter,
but a regular council would be required to ratify this act and to elect his successor.) After the
Council (we are again not told how long after) Constantius writes a pubhc letter to Alexandria
forbidding further persecution of the orthodox (p. 277, note 3). This may well have been
in the later summer of 344. Then 'about ten months later' {ib.) Gregory dies. This would
bring us ' about ' to the early summer of 345 ; and this rough calculation 3 is curiously confirmed
by the precise statement of the Index xviii., that Gregory died on June 26 (345, although the
Index, in accordance with its principle of arrangement, which will be explained in the proper
place, puts the notice under the following year). Of course the date of the letter of Con-
stantius, which Athanasius gives as the terminus a quo of the ' ten months,' cannot be fixed except
by conjecture, and the date given by the Index is (i) the only precise statement we have,
(2) is likely enough in itself, and (3) agrees perfectly with the datum of de Synod 26. That
is to say, as far as our evidence goes it appears to be correct
(e) Return of Athanasius in 346. Here the precise statements of the Index and Hist.
Aceph. agree, and are confirmed by Letter 19, which was written after his return. The date
therefore requires no discussion. But it is important as a signal example of the high value to
be assigned to the united vf\X.r\e%s of our two chronicles. For this is the pivot date which, in the
face of all previously accepted calculations, has taken its place as unassailably correct, and has
been the centre from which the recovery of .the true chronology of the period has proceeded
The difficulty in dating the interview with Constantius at Antioch is briefly discussed p. xlvii,
note 10.
(f) Irruption of Syrianus and Intrusion of George. The former event is dated without
any room for doubt on the night of Thursday, Feb. 8 (Mechir 13), 356 (see p. 301, also
Index and Hist. Aceph.). Here again the accuracy of our chronicles on points where they agree
comes out strongly. It should be noted that an ill-informed writer could hardly have
avoided a blunder here; for 356 was a leap-year: and in consequence of this (i) all the
months from Thoth to Phamenoth, inclusive, began a day later, owing to the additional
Epagomenon before the first day of Thoth: the 13th Mechir would, therefore, in these
years correspond to Feb. 8, not as usual to Feb. 7. (2) Owing to the Roman calendar
inserting its intercalary day at the end of February, Feb. 8 would fall on the Thursday,
not on the Friday (reckoning back from Easter on Apr. 7 : see Tables C, D., pp. 501 sq.). This
date, then, may rank as one of the absolutely fixed points of our chronology. After the above
examples of the value of the concordant testimony of the two chronicles, we must demand
positive and circumstantial proof to the contrary before rejecting their united testimony that
George made his entry into Alexandria in the Lent of 357, not 356. As a matter of fact all
the. positive evidence {supr., p. Hi., note 11) is the other way, and when weighed against it, the
feather-weight of an inference from a priori probability, and from the assumed silence of
Athanasius {Ap. Fug. 6), kicks the beam.
(g) Aiiianasius in 362. The difficulty here is that Athanasius clearly returned after the
murder of George, which, according to Amm. Marc. XXH. xi., took place upon the receipt at
Alexandria of the news of the execution of Artemius at Antioch, which latter event must
be placed in July. Therefore Athanasius would not have returned till August, 362. On the
other hand the Hist. Aceph. makes George arrested four days after his return to Alexandria, and
immediately upon the proclamation of the new Emperor, Nov. 30, 361. On Dec. 24 George is
murdered, on Feb. 9 the edict for the return of the exiles is promulged, and on Feb. 21
Athanasius returns, to take flight again 'eight months' later, on Oct. 24. The difficulty is so
admirably sifted by Mr. Gwatkin (pp. 220, 221) that I refer to his discussion instead of giving
one here. His conclusion is clearly right, viz., that Ammianus here, as occasionally elsewhere,
has missed the right order of events, and that George was really murdered at the time stated in
Hist. Aceph. The only addition to be made to Mr. Gwatkin's decisive argument is that
I The above r««»f/of the details of the evidence makes it clear I critic. The proposal of the latter to correct 'Epiph.' in Fest. Ttuf.
that Mr. Gwatkin's alleged oversights are in reality those of his | to ' Pharmuthi' is especially gratuitous.
Ixxxiv PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER V., § 3.
Ammianus Is inconsistent with himself, and in agreement with the Hist. Aceph., in dating the
arrest of George shortly after his return from court. As George would not have been at Julian's
court, this notice implies that the arrest took place only shortly after the death of Constantius.
Moreover, George, who even under Constantius was not over-ready to visit his see, and
who knew well enough the state of heathen feeling against him, would not be likely to return
to Alexandria after Julian had been six months on the throne. We have then not so much to
balance Ammianus against the Hist. Aceph., as to balance one of his statements, not otherwise
confirmed, against another which is supported by the Hist. Aceph., and by other authorities as
well, especially Epiph. HcBr. 76. i. (The Festal Index gives no precise date here, except
Oct. 24, for the flight of Athanasius, which so far as it goes confirms the Hist. Aceph.) More-
over, " on the side of Ammianus there is at worst an oversight ; whereas the Hist. Aceph. would
need to be re-written." The murder of George, Dec. 24, 361, return of Athanasius, Feb. 21,
and his flight, Oct. 24, 362, may therefore be taken as firmly-established dates.
(h) Supposed Council at Alexandria in 363. This Synod assumed by Baronius, Montfaucon
{Vit. in Ann. 363. 3) and others, after Theodoret {HE. iv. 2) must be pronounced fictitious
(so already Vales, in Thdt. I.e.). (i) The letter of Ammon (extract printed in this volume,
p. 487) tells us on the authority of Athanasius that when Pammon and Theodore miraculously
announced the death of Julian, they informed Athan. that the new Emperor was to be a
Christian, but that his reign would be short ; that Athanasius must go at once and secretly to
the Emperor, whom he would meet on his journey before the army reached Antioch, that he
would be favourably received by him, and that he would obtain an order for his restoration.
Now (apart from the possibility of a grain of truth in the (pvmv of the death of Julian) all these
details bear the unmistakeable character of a vaticinium post eventum, in other words, we have
the story as it was current when Ammon drew up the document in question at the request of
Archbishop Theophilus (see also p. 567, note i). At that time, then, the received account was
that Athan. hastened secretly to meet Jovian as soon as he knew of his accession, and that he
met him between Antioch and Nisibis. Now this native Egyptian account is transmitted inde-
pendently by two other channels. (2) The Hist. Aceph. viii. tells us that the bishop entered
Alexandria secretly * adventu eius non pluribus cognito,' went by ship to Jovian, and returned
with letters from him. (3) The Festal Index tells us that eight months (i.e., Oct. 24 —
June 26) after the flight of Ath. Julian died. On his death bei?ig published, Athan. returned
secretly by night to Alexandria. Then on Sept. 6 he crossed the Euphrates (this seems to be
the meaning of 'embarked at the Eastern Hierapolis,' the celebrated city, perhaps the ancient
Karkhemish, which commanded the passage of the river, though som? miles from its W. bank)
and met the Emperor Jovian, by whom he was eventually dismissed with honour, returning to
Alexandria Feb. 20, 364. Jovian was at Edessa Sept. 27, at Antioch Oct. 23.
The agreement of the three documents is most striking, and the more so since the
chronicles are clearly independent both of one another and especially of the letter of
Ammon, as is clear from the fact that neither mentions the (pvi^V, while the Festal Index
implicitly contradicts it. This appears to be a crucial case in many ways. Firstly, the three
narratives are all consistent in excluding the possibility of any such council as is supposed to
have been summoned (see above, p. Ix.). Against this there is nothing but the hasty
inference of Thdt. (corrected by Valois, see above, ib.)\ the valueless testimony of the
Libellus Synodicus (9th cent.) ; the marvellous tale of Sozom. v. 7 (referred to this time
by Tillem. viii. 219, but by Soz. to the death of George : probably an amplification of Hist.
Aceph. * visus est ') that Athanasius suddenly to the delight of his people was found enthroned
in his Church ; and the more vague statement of Socr. (iii. 24) that he regained his church * at
once after Julian's death.' As the three fifth-century writers are implicitly contradicted by three
writers of Alexandria at the end of the previous century, the latter must be believed against
the former. Secondly, the Index, the later as it appears, of the two chronicles, would seem to
represent a form of the story less marvellous and therefore earlier than that of the Narratio. Now
the latter certainly belongs to the Episcopate of Theophilus. The Index therefore can scarcely
be placed later, and the Hist. Aceph. would fall, as Sievers, Einl. 2, had indpendently placed
it at the beginning of the Episcopate of Theophilus. Thirdly, we have here an excellent
example not only of the value of the combined evidence of the two chronicles, but also of their
character as representing in many important respects the Alexandrian tradition of the last third
of the fourth century. Before leaving this question it will be well to consider the dates a little
more closely. Hierapolis was counted eight days' journey from Antioch. From Alexandria
to Antioch by sea was about 500 miles, i.e. with a fair wind scarcely more than four days' sail
(it might be less, cf. Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul, vol. 2, p. 376, sq. ed. 1877). This
CHRONOLOGY. A CRUCIAL EXAMPLE. Ixxxv
allows about twelve days for Athan. to reach the Euphrates from Alexandria, remembering
that southerly winds prevail in the Eastern Mediterranean at this season (Sievers, Einl. 28).
Now Athan. reached Hierapolis on Sept. 6 (Thoth 8, Egyptian leap-year). But according
to the Index, he reached Alex, after Julian's death was published, and this according to
Hist. Aceph. was on Mesori 26, i.e. Aug. 19. From that day to Sept. 6 are eighteen days,
leaving about a week's margin for Ath. to hear the news, reach Alexandria, and perhaps for
delay in finding a vessel, &c. But a far wider margin is really available, for the official
announcement must have been preceded by many rumours, and was probably not despatched
till more than a fortnight after Julian's death (as is observed by Mr. Gwatkin, p. 221). If
we remember that Athanasius, according to the Letter of Ammon, was making all possible
haste {supra, § 9) we shall again realise the subtle cohesion of these three sources, and the
impossibility of the ' large Synod ' imagined by some historians for the year 363.
(k) Exile under Valens. The date of this is discussed by Tillem. \note 96) and Montf.
Vit. who, on the unstable b*asis of a computation of Theophanes (about 800 a.d.) and of the
vague and loose sequences of events in Socr. and Sozom., tentatively refer the exile to the
year 367. The only show of solid support for this date was that Tatianus (of later and
unfortunate celebrity), whom the Photian Life and that by the Metaphrast connected with
the expulsion, was known from Cod. Theod. to have been Prefect of Egypt in 2)(>1- But this
airy fabric now gives place to the precise and accurate data of the Theophilan chronicles.
Both Index and Hist. Aceph. place the occurrence not under Tatian but under Flavian, gov-
ernor of Egypt 364 — 366. Both fix the year 365. Hht Hist. Aceph. (used by Soz. vi. 12,
who however makes no use of the dates) gives May 5, 365, for the Imperial order against
bishops restored by Julian, June 8 for the reference to the Emperor {supra, ch. ii. § 9), Oct.
5 for the retreat of Athan. and search for him by Flavian and Duke Victorinus, Feb. i for
the return of Athanasius. This detailed chronology is corroborated in two ways ; first by a
letter of Libanius {Ep. 569) to Flavian, thanking him for a present of [Egyptian] doves,
and congratulating him on his 'victory ' (a play on the name Victorinus is added), but with
a satirical hint that if only Victorinus had any prisoners to shew for his pains (a clear allusion
to the escape of Ath.) he (Libanius) would think him a finer fellow even than Cleon (Siev.
Einl. 31). Secondly, the restoration of Ath. by Valens becomes historically intelligible, in
view of the danger from Procopius, as pointed out supr. p. \x\.,fin. We cannot then doubt
that the chronicles are here once more the channels of the genuine chronological tradition.
(1) Death of Athanasius. It is superfluous to discuss this date at the present day, but it
may be worth while to point out for the last time how admirably the combined testimony of
our chronicles confirms the judgment of the best critics (Montfaucon, Tillemont, &c.) ante-
cedent to their discovery, and how clearly the secondary value to be assigned to the chrono-
logical statements of Socrates and Sozomen once more comes out (Socr, iv. 21 puts the date at
371, and was followed by Papebroke, Petavius and others (fuller details and discussion of
the question on its ancient footing in Newman's preface to Hist. Tracts of St. Athan., pp.
XX., sqq.). But no one any longer questions the date of May 2-3, 373. "The fact that the
Hist. Aceph. gives May 3 and the Index May 2 (the date observed in the later calendars)
vouches for the independence of the two documents and for the very early date of the former :
probably, as Sievers and others suggest, the true date is the night between May 2 and May 3.
L GENERAL CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE LIFE OF
S. ATHANASIUS.
N.B. — Dates upon which the Historia Acephala and Festal Index coincide are printed in Thick Type.
Where the agreement, though certain, is constructive and not explicit, an asterisk is added. Where the
month, or day, is in ordinary type, the agreement does not extend to the details in question. The more
doubtful points of chronology are marked by italics.
284. Aug. 29. Beginning of ' Diocletian era.'
298. BIRTH OF S. ATHANASIUS about this year.
301. Death of Bishop Theonas. Peter, bishop of Alexandria.
303. Feb. 23. First edict of persecution by Diocletian and Galerius.
December. Vicennalia of Diocletian at Rome.
304. ' Fourth Edict' of Persecution.
305. Retirement of Diocletian (Constantine and Maximin ' Caesars ').
306. Constantine proclaimed ' Augustus ' at York.
307. Maximin assumes title of ' Augustus ' (holds Syria and Egypt).
311. First edict of Toleration, and death of Galerius.
Ixxxvi
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER V.
311.
312.
313.
318.
319-
321.
Oct. 26.
324-
Sept. 18.
325-
Summer,
327.
November.
328.
April 17.
June 8.
329,
330.
330.
331.
334-
335-
July II*.
Aug. — Sept.
End of Sept.
Oct. 30.
336.
Feb. 8.
337-
May 22.
June 17.
Nov. 23 *.
338.
July 25—27.
Winter.
339-
January.
339.
Mar. 19.
Mar. 22.
April 16.
340.
January.
Autumn.
341-
Midsummer.
342.
May.
Summer.
Late autumn.
343-
Easter.
July.
344-
Easter,
After Easter.
August.
345.
Easter, April
June 26.
346.
September.
Oct. 21.
End of year.
347-
349-
350.
Jan. 18.
351.
Mar. 15.
Sep. 28.
353. May 19.
Renewed persecution by Maximin in Syria and Egypt. Martyrdom of Peter, &c., at
Alexandria.
Edict of Toleration by Constantine at Milan.
Constantine defeats Maxentius at the Milviau Bridge.
Achillas, bishop of Alexandria.
Edict of Milan (third Edict of Toleration), by Constantine and Licinius.
Alexander, bishop of Alexandria.
Maximin defeated by Licinius. His Edict of Toleration, and death.
Earliest possible date for the ' boy-baptisni ' of Athanasius.
Probable date of the contra Gentes, his first book.
Commencement of Arian controversy.
Deposition of Arius by an Egyptian Synod.
Mareotic defection to Arius.
Memorandum of deposition signed by Clergy of Alexandria.
Schism of Colluthus.
Letter of Alexander of Alexandria to his namesake of Byzantium,
Final defeat of Licinius. Constantine sole Emperor.
First intervention of Constantine in Arian question.
Hosius at Alexandria. Council there.
COUNCIL OF NIC^A.
Entire Meletian Episcopate collected at Alexandria, and reconciled to the Church (p. I37)„
Death of Alexander.
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria.
Visitation of the Thebaid : ordaifts Pachomius presbyter.
Council at Antioch deposes Eustathius.
Athanasius defends himself before Constantine.
Council at Cccsarea. Athan. refuses to attend.
Athanasius leaves Alex, for Council of Tyre (beginning of first exile, Epiphi Vfy
Mareotic commission in Egypt.
? Council at Jerusalem. Arius received to communion.
Athanasius at CP.
Athanasius starts for * Treveri in Gaul.'
Council at CP., Marcellus {Asclepas), &c., deposed.
Basil, bishop of Ancyra.
Death of Arius at CP.
Death of Constantine at Nicomedia.
Letter of ' Constantius Caesar' ordering return of Athanasius (p. Ixxxii.).
* Return of Athanasius to Alexandria.
Visit of Antony to Alexandria.
PiSTUS intrusive bishop of Alexandria.
Council of Egyptian bishops at Alexandria.
Envoys of both parties in Rome.
Synod at Antioch appoint GREGORY bishop of Alexandria.
Flight of Athanasius from ' Theonas.'
Arrival of Gregory at Alexandria.
* Departure of Athanasius for Rome (p. Ixxxii., t^e authorities agree as to the year^
and their data combine readily as to the exact days).
Eusebian bishops meet at Antioch and reply to Julius. Their letter reaches Rome in
spring.
Roman council and reply of Julius to Eusebians (eighteen months from arrival of Ath^
in Rome).
Council of the Dedication at Antioch. Four creeds.
Athanasius leaves Rome (after three years' stay) for Milan.
Constans leaves him there (Frankish Campaign).
Constans repels Eusebian deputies at Treveri (p. xlv.).
Death of Eusebius of Nicomedia or CP.
Athanasius at Treveri.
Assembly of Council of Sardica.
Athanasius at Naissus.
Deposition of Stephen : Council at Antioch appoint Leontius and issue ' Macrostich.'
Constantius writes forbidding persecution of orthodox at Alexalndria.
7 Athanasius at Aquileia.
Council at Milan. Photinus condemned.
Death of Gregory at Alexandria (about ten months after letter of Constantius).
Interview of Ath. with Constantius at Antioch.
Return to Alexandria.
Earliest possible date for consecration of Frumentius by Athanasius.
First council at Sirmium against Photinus.
Controversy with Rome concerning Easter.
Murder of Constans.
Gallus proclaimed as ' Constantius Caesar.*
Battle of Mursa.
Second council of Sirmium. Photinus deposed.
Legation of Serapion, &c., to Constantius. Montanus at Alexandria.
GENERAL CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
Ixxxvii
Council at Aries against Athanasius.
Execution of Gallus.
Council at Milan against Athanasius.
Diogenes at Alexandria.
Julian ' Caesar.'
Syrianus at Alexandria.
Church of Theonas stormed by Syrianus.
Beginning of third exile.
Cataphronius becomes Prefect of Egypt.
George enters Alexandria as Bishop.
Third council, and second creed ('blasphemy') of Sirmium.
Council of Ancyra.
Expulsion of George from Alexandria.
Conference of Sirmium. The dated Creed.
Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia.
Creed of Nike accepted by delegates at CP.
Julian proclaimed ' Augustus ' at Paris.
Dedication council at CP. (Homoean ; deposition of ' Semi-Arian ' leaders and excom-
munication of Aetius).
Meletius elected bishop of Antioch and deposed. Euzoius, Arian bishop.
Death of Constantius.
Julian's edict (for recall of bishops) posted at Alexandria. ,
Return of Athanasius.
Council of the confessors at Alexandria.
Lucifer founds the schism at Antioch.
Renewed order of Julian against Athanasius,
Retirement of Athanasius.
Death of Julian. Athan. in Upper Egypt.
Athanasius secretly in Alexandria.
Athan. crosses the Euphrates.
Meets Jovian at Edessa.
At Antioch.
Returns to Alexandria.
Death of Jovian.
Valens appointed ' Augustus * by Valentinian.
Council of Lampsacus.
Valens at Antioch. Renewal of Arian persecutions.
Rescript arrives at Alexandria for expulsion of Athanasius*
Athanasius retires to his country house.
Revolt of Procopius at CP.
Athanasius officially restored. i
Defeat of Procopius.
Csesareum burnt at Alexandria.
Attempt of Lucius to enter Alexandria.
Athanasius begins his Memorial Church.
Memorial Church dedicated.
Correspondence between Athan. and Basil begins.
Deputation of the Marcellians of Ancyra to Athanasius.
Two hooks against Apollinarianism.
Death of Athanasius. ,
A table of the Egyptian months, and a table of the date of Easter, &c., in each year of
the episcopate of Athanasius, will be given at the end of the introduction to the collection
of Letters at the close of this volume (p. 501 sq^. A list of the consuls of each year is given
in the Festal Index.
353.
Autumn.
354.
355.
July — Dec.
November.
356.
Jan. 6.
Feb. 8.
June 10.
357-
Feb. 24.
Summer,
358.
Lent.
Oct. 2.
359-
May 22.
May — Dec.
Dec. 31.
360.
Jan.
361.
Nov. 3.
362.
Feb. 9.
Feb. 21.
Summer.
October 4.
363-
June 26.
August ?
Sep. 6.
Sep.
Winter.
364-
Feb.i4(or2o)
Feb. 17.
Mar. 29.
Autumn.
365.
Spring.
May 5.
Oct. 5.
Sep. 28.
366.
Feb. I.
May 21.
July 21.
367-
Sep. 24.
368.
Sep. 22.
370.
Aug. 7.
371.
1
372.
373.
May 2—3.
Ixxxviii
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER V., TABLE II.
IL SYNOPTICAL TABLE OF THE BISHOPS OF THE CHIEF SEES,
And of the principal Councils held, during the lifetime of Athanasius.
N.B. — ^The names of bishops in italics are open to doubt regarding their date.
An asterisk prefixed to a bishop's name means that he was elected when the see was not de facto vacant (the case of
Ursinus of Rome in 366 is not free from doubt).
t after the name of a s)mod indicates that although not formally Arian it was held under the influence of Eusebius
of Nicomedia.
* denotes a s)mod more or less implicated in Arianism by its creeds (N.B. no creed at Aries or Milan, 353 — 355).
** denote a formally Arian sjmod.
* Semi-Arian ' synods are printed in italics.
W.
Empsror.
506. Constantine
305. ijalerius .».
307. Licinius
308 — 313. Maximin
523. Constantine, sole Augustus
337-
i^
Constantine II.
(d. 340).
Constans (d. 350).
Constantius
Rome.
309. Eusebius
310. Melchi-
ades
314. Silvester
(<i.33S)-
336. Mark
337. Julius
Alexandria.
301. Peter ...
312. Achillas.
313. Alexan-
der. ..,
328. Athana-
sius.
338. *Pistus.
339. *Gregory
Antioch.
Constantinople.
319. Philogo-
nius.
Paulinus.
c. 324. Eusta-
thius.
330. 'Paulinus?''
Eulalius.
332. Euphro-
nius.
333. Flacillus(or
Placitus)
342, Stephen.
344. Leontius.
Synods.
305. Illiberis.
320? Alexander.
[330. ' Constanti
nople' made the
new Rome].
336. Paul (d. 350?).
337? *Eusebius (d.
341-2).
342. *Macedonius.
313. Rome.
314. Arles.
314? Ancyra.
315? Neo-Caesarea.
321. Alexandria.
324. Alexandria,
325. NiCiEA.
330. Antiocht.
334. Cresareaf.
335. Tyret and Je.
rusalem +.
336. CF. t
339&40. Antiochf.
340. Rome.
340. Gangraf.
341. Antiochf*
Sardica.
J43- piiiiippo-
polis*.
344. Antioch*.
345. Milan.
347. Sirmium I*.
PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER V., TABLE IL
Ixxxix
Emperor.
W. E.
350. Constantius, sole Augustus.
361. Julian.
363. Jovian.
364. Valentinian. Valens.
/ Gratian (d. 383).
i'->- \Valentinian II. (d. 392).
379. Theodosius.
Rome.
352. Liberius.
357. *Felix...
366. Damasus
(d. 384).
366-7. *Ursi-
nus.
Alexandria.
357. *George.
Antioch.
Constantinople.
367. •Lucius.
373. Peter.
357. Eudoxius.
359. *Anianus.
361. Meletius.
*Euzoius.
362. *Paulinus.
(schism).
360. * Eudoxius. ...
370. Demophilus
[Evagrius.]
Synods.
351. Sirmium II *.
353. Aries*.
355. Milan*.
357. Sirmiumlll*'
358. Ancyra.
359. Sirmium IV *.
j Ariminum*.
tSeleucia*.
360. CP»*.
362. Alexandria.
362. Laodicea??
363. Antioch.
364. Lampsacus.
367. Tyana.
VOL. IV.
g
APPENDIX.
The Civil and Military Government of Egypt in the Lifetime of Athanasius.
The name Egypt in the fourth century was appUed firstly to the * diocese ' or group
of provinces governed by the Prsefectus ^gypti or ' Prsefectus Augustahs/ secondly to the
Delta or ^Egyptus Propria, one of the provinces of which the diocese was made up. These
provinces (Ammian. Marc. XXII. xvi.) were originally three in number : Egypt proper, Libya,
and the Thebais. During our period they became five, firstly by the separation of the Eastern
Delta from Egypt proper under the name of Augustamnica in 341 (infr. pp. 130, 504, note 17a);
secondly by the subdivision of Libya (at an uncertain date) into Hither Libya (Libya
'Inferior,' or 'Siccior'), and the Pentapolis or Libya Superior of which Ptolemais was the
capital. At a later date still the Heptanomis was separated from ' .^gyptus ' under the
name of Arcadia, given in honour of the Emperor Arcadius. These then are the six provinces
which make up ' Egypt ' in the Notitia (shortly after a.d. 400). Each province, with the
exception of Augustamnica, whose governor enjoyed the title of ' corrector,' was under a praeses
(i7yov/iiei/oy) : not one of the six was of consular rank. This regulation was due to the peculiar
constitution of the diocese or province of Egypt in the wider sense. At the head of this
latter, and subordinate in rank, though scarcely second in dignity, to the Comes Orientis,
was the Prefect of Egypt, who enjoyed an exceptional position among the greater provincial
officers. He appears to have been, at least in practice, directly under the Praefectus Prsetorio
per Orientem, the supreme civil representative of ' Augustus ' throughout the Eastern Empire.
The title Praefectus had in fact a different history as applied to the Prefect of the East and
the Prefect of Egypt respectively. As applied to the latter, it was as old as Augustus. The
importance of Eg3^t, mainly but not solely as a granary of Rome, had led the politic heir
of Julius Caesar to ensure its complete and peculiar dependence on the emperor. For this
object, its government was committed to a nominee of the emperor, who must be not a Senator
but an Eques only ; i.e. he must never have held one of the great offices of state from Consul
to quaestor. No one of senatorial rank was to be permitted to set foot in Egypt. (For
the prerogatives of the praefectus yEgypti under Augustus see Tacitus Ann, xii. 60, also Ulp.
Digest. L xvii.). This arrangement survived the various vicissitudes of Egypt in the third cen-
tury, and even the reorganisation of the Empire by Diocletian. Egypt was severed off between
365 and 386 from the Eastern 'Diocese' (Sievers, p. 117, appeaUng to Mommsen in Abhandl.
der Berliner A kad. 1862). Upon the above facts was founded the (perhaps merely popular)
title 'Augustalis' which we find already applied to the Prefect of Egypt about a.d. 350
{infr. p. 143, cf. p. 93 note). But Sievers {ubi supr.), following Mommsen, contends that
there is reason to think that the dignity of ' Augustal ' Prefect was officially created about
a.d. 367. This view cannot be adequately discussed here, but it rests only in part upon the
series cf governors furnished by the Festal Index.
Fiom that document we learn that the prefect of ' Egypt ' in the wider sense in almost
every case held also the office of ' governor ' of Egypt in the narrower sense. The exceptions
noted by Sievers (§ 14) are in most cases based on the errors of Larsow. But in 365
Flavianus is 'governor' only, next year ' Prefect' also : his successors Proclianus and Tatianus
are each 'governor' only (366-7), but the latter is Prefect in 368, and 'governor' only in
369-70, as also is Palladius, 370 — 371, who is yet succeeded by Olympius as ' Prefect.' These
variations may be due merely to careless use of language, or possibly to some change about
the time referred to.
The list of prefects of Egypt is fuller than any that exists for a Roman province over so
long a period, and on the whole it is in the highest degree trustworthy. But there are one or
two drawbacks to take account of. Firstly, there are the discrepancies between the Index iii.,
vi., vii., and the headings to the corresponding letters (see notes). Also, the heading to Letter x.
presupposes a change of governor in the previous year of which the Index tells us nothing.
Again, a letter of Julian's (No. 23) is addressed to a ' Hermogenes, governor of Egypt,' for
CHAPTER V. APPENDIX. GOVERNMENT OF EGYPT. xci
whom it is difficult to find room in the following list at the date required (end of 361, when
Cierontius was prefect). Julianus, uncle of the Emperor, if not disguised under the name
Italicianus (see below), possibly ruled Egypt (Jul. Ep. 11), as Comes Orientis, which office he
held in 362. On the other hand the Olympus of Index xxxiv., and the Ecdikius of Julian,
JEpp. 6, 50, and Cod. T/ieod. xv. i. 8, are probably one and the same (Sievers, p. 124).
The Military command of Egypt was now in the hand of the ' dux,' who had the disposal
of the ■ ■ -- . - r . : , . ., ^. , .
entrus
JEgypti is replaced by a higher official, entitled the ' Comes Rei Militaris per ^gypti
this belongs to a later date. In the time of Athanasius ' Counts ' appear in Egypt only as
extraordinary or special commissioners whose authority is exercised concurrently with that of
the Dux, as, e.g., Count Heraclianus or Heraclius {infr. pp. 290, 292), whose commission runs
parallel with the command of the new 'dux' Sebastianus; and Count Asterius(p. 289), who was
in Egypt when Felicissimus was ' Duke.'
We now give a hst of the governors and dukes of Egypt, with references to the Festal
Index: these must also be supplemented by the general index to this volume : —
(1) Prefect and Governor.
328, 329. Septimius Zenius {Index i., Heading i.).
330. Magninianus (/«af(?^ ii., Heading ii.).
331. Hyginus (or ' Eugenius,' Index iii.), but Florentius (Heading iii.).
332. Hyginus (Heading iv. and Index iv. ).
333. Paternus (Heading v. and Index v.).
334. 335. Paternus {Index), but Piiilagrius (Heading iv., v.).
336-7. Philagrius {Index viii., ix.).
338. Theodorus {Index x.), superseded by Philagrius (Heading x.).
339, 340. Philagrius {Index xi., xii., Heading xi. ).
341 — 343. Longinus {Index xixx. — xv., Headings xiii., xiv., and cf. Cod. Th. XVI. if. 10, II, correcting date
by Sievers, p. 1 14).
344. Palladius of Italy {Index xvi. ).
345 — 352. Nestorius of Gaza {Index xvii. — xxiv., Headings xvii. — xx., also infr. pp. 218, 219, notes, &&),
353, 354. Sebastianus of Thrace {Index xxv., xxvi.).
355, 356. Maximus ' the elder' of Nicaea {Index xxvii., xxviii., and see pp. 246, 301).
356, 7. Cataphronius {Index xxviii., xxix. ; he arrived on June 10, 356, see p. 290, note 9 ; also cf. Liban.
Epp. 434, 435)- .
357 — 359. Pamassius {Index xxix., xxxi., cf. for the latter year Amm. Marc. XIX., xii.).
359. (For 3 months only) 'Italicianus of Italy,' perhaps for Julianus (so Siev., p. 121, cf. Index xxxi.).
359 — 361. Faustinus {Index y.'K.y^.. — xxxiii. , cf. p. 291?).
361, 362. Gerontius {Index xxxiiu, xxxiv., Liban. £pp. 294, 295, 547, 548).
362, 363. Ecdikius Olympus {Index xxxiv., xxxv., cf. remarks above).
364. Hierius or Aerius {Index xxxvi., Sievers, Liben dss Libanius, Appendix A).
364. Maximus {Index ib., Liban. Ep. 1050, written in July or Aug.), for a short time only.
364 — 366. Flavianus {Index xxxvi., xxxviii., Liban. Ep. 569, supr. ch. v. § 3, k).
366, 367. Proclianus {Index xxxviii. , xxxix. ).
367 — 370. Tatianus {Index xxxix., xlii., see Gibbon ch. xxix. and notes 6-8, for references).
370> 371' Olympius Palladius {Index xlii., xliii.).
371 — 373. Aelius Palladius {Index xliii. — xlv., Socr. iv. 21, &c.).
(2) Dux ^gypti.
Our materials for this list are very scanty, but we can verify the following : —
340 and 345. Balacius or Valacius (pp. 219, 273, &c.).
350. Felicissimus (p. 289).
356. (Jan. and Feb.) Syrianus {Index xxviii., &c.).
356. (Apparently after Midsummer, cf. p. 292 with 290.) Sebastianus ('successor of Syrianus,' Ep.
Amnion. 21) ; he remains till after 358 (cf Siev. p. 125 for references to letter<; of Libanius),
360. Artemius ('succ. of Sebastianus,' ib., Ittdex xxxii., Letter 53. note l).
365, 366. Victorinus (ch. v. § 3, k).
367, 368. Traianus {Index xxxix., Sievers, pp. 146, sq.).
On the matters dealt with in this appendix, consult Mommsen, Provinces (Eng. Tra.),
. ii., pp. 233, 246; \h& Notitia (ed. Panciroli, Genev., 1623, Bocking, Bonn, 1839 — ^^SS*
tSeeck, Berlin, 1876) ; Gibbon, ch. xvii.; Marquardt, Rom. Staats-verwaltung, vol. i.; and Kuhn,
Die stddtische, 6^^., Verfassung des R. Reiches, vol. ii. ; also Sievers on the Hist. Aceph. {supr.
ch. i., § 3)- . .
On the Egyptian bishoprics, see, in addition to Le Quien, a Coptic list of sees in De
Rouge, Geographic de la Basse-Egypte, Paris, 1891, which came out too late to be used for this
volume.
INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISE
CONTRA GENTES.
This treatise and that which follows it form in reality two parts of a single work.
Jerome {De Script. Eccl.) refers to them as 'Adversus Gentes Libri Duo.' They are, however,
more commonly distinguished by the titles given them in the present volume. Both books,
indeed, are mainly directed against the Gentiles, but in the present treatise the refutation is car-
ried out with more special reference to the beliefs and worship of the heathen. The two books
belong to the earlier years of Athanasius. The Arian controversy which broke out (319 a.d.)
probably before his twenty-second year has left no trace upon them (not even c. Gent. 46. 8,
see note there). How long before the limit thus fixed the work was composed it is impossible
to say with certainty. The hint {c. Gent. 9. 5) that the time for the deification of emperors
by decree of the Senate might have come to an end points to the conversion of Constantine
as a terminus a quo. And the full maturity of power which marks out the de Incarnatione
as a master-piece of Christian theology inclines us to put the composition as late as we can.
Hence the date usually adopted, viz. in or shortly before 318 b.c^ the twenty-first year
(probably) of Athanasius' age.
The position of the book in relation to the general history of the theology of
Athanasius and of the Church has been pointed out in the Prolegomena. It remains to
sketch its argument, and tabulate its arrangement: a somewhat more extended summary
is prefixed to each section.
His aim is to vindicate (§ i) the Dignity and reasonableness of the Christian Faith. The
main vindication of the Faith is seen in its practical results. But, that these may produce
their proper effect, a removal of error from the mind is needed. Hence the necessity of
refuting idolatry, which is deduced from the same cause as evil in general, namely, the
departure of man from his original exemplar, the Logos (§§ 2 — 5). By the misuse of his
power of conscious choice, man fell (6 — 8) into the degradation and illusions (9 — 15) of
idolatry. He then examines the popular and learned pleas on behalf of idolatry (16 — 26),
and thus arrives at the central problem of the conception of God. That God is not Nature
is shewn (27 — 29) by the mutual dependence of the various constituents of the Universe :
no one of these, therefore, can be God : nor can their totaUty ; for God is not compounded of
parts on which He depends, but is Himself the cause of existence to all Such a God as this,
the soul of man (30 — 33) can and, if purified from sin, will (34) recognise ; if her imperfections
hinder this, the spectacle of Reason and Order in the Universe (35—46) will assist her to
recognise the handiwork of God, and the presence of the Logos, and through him the Father.
The reclamation and restoration of sinful and degraded man can only be effected (47) by
a return to the Logos. This opens the question dealt with in the second book, de In-
carnatione.
Such is the general drift of the c. Gentes, and its high interest is beyond question.
At the same time it may be admitted that to modern readers much of it fails to commend
itself. In the two-fold work before us Athanasius 'looks before and after.' The second
portion, on the Incarnation, waxes rather than wanes in its significance for modern theology.
VOL. IV. B
INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISE
It is more modern to us than the theology of any generation since then. But the c. Gentes,
with its retrospect upon a past utterly dead' to the human spirit, its arguments addressed
to a range of ideas widely remote from our own, its inadequate view of the genesis and history
of heathen religions, its antiquated physics (36, 44, and the (fivaiKos X.iyos of 39), its occasional
glaring fallacies of argument (16 sub fin., 33. 1), is apt to disappoint the modern student
who reads it for the first time. This may explain its not having been translated before now.
But while the defects of the book are evident at a glance, it grows upon the reader with
repeated study. The moral elevation of its tone, — the firm grasp of central Christian truths, —
the sure insight in dealing with such problems as evil and sin, — the relation of God to Nature, —
the ethical contrast of Christian theism and heathen polytheism, — the grave humour of such
passages as 16. 5; lo. '4 fin. ; 11. 2 fin., &c., — and beyond all this a certain largeness of
mind and simple unostentatious fervour of conviction, stamp the book as a great one, and as
the worthy complement of its more renowned companion.
The two together ' are, next to Origen's de jPn'nd/its, the first attempt to construct
a scientific system of the Christian religion upon certain fundamental ideas of God and
world, sin and redemption ; and they form the ripe fruit of the positive apology in the Greek
Church.' (Schafif, Nicene Christianity, p. 82.) The polemic against idolatry and heathen
mythology is common to the general class of Christian apologists, and is to be found in
heathen writers like Lucian and even Porphyry (letter to Anebo). But what distinguishes
Athanasius from previous apologists (excepting Origen) is the novel nature of his problem.
The aUiance between philosophy and gross popular idolatry had given Christian apology
a new task. From Porphyry downwards (Porphyry himself was not consistent in this respect)
the Neo-platonist school, in alarm at the progress of Christianity, had taken up the defence
of popular paganism, endeavouring to subsume its grosser manifestations, its images, sacri-
fices, &c., under philosophico-religious principles (infra § 19, &c.). The idea of 'theurgy'
as the necessary initiation into the higher life colours the teaching of Porphyry, but more
strongly that of his pupil lamblichus, who died early in the fourth century, and whose
pupils (^desius, &c.) were contemporaries of Athanasius. This degeneration of Platonism,
however, went along with the continued study of Plato, whose dialogues are to some extent
common ground between Athanasius and his opponents (Phsedrus, § 5, 33, Laws, 33, Timaeus,
41, &c., &c. ; but it is not in every case easy to say whether Athan. quotes Plato merely
at second hand, or directly, as he certainly does 10. 4).
It may be remarked finally that in these early treatises the influence of Origen and his
school is more distinct than in the later works of Athanasius. Not to lay too much stress
on his proof of God's existence and unity from the Cosmos (cf Orig. c. Cels. I. 23), the
prominence of the philosophic doctrine of the Logos as a cosmic mediatorial Principle
(compare Alexander's jj-eairevdva-a (pvais fiovoyevtjs) stands in contrast with his later insistence
(cf. Oraf. ii. 24, s^.) on the directness of the personal agency of God (see also below, note
on 'In niud' 2). The Platonist idea of the Logos is utilised {de Licarn. 41) without sufficient
explanation of its fundamental difference from the Christian doctrine. The influence of
Origenism is traceable in his theory of the nature of evil as purely negative (cf. § 5 with
Orig. c. Cels. iv. 66), in the explanation (to which I recall nothing parallel in his later works) of
the garden of Eden as figurative (2. 4, cf. 3. 3), the stress laid on the restoration oi knowledge of
God through the Logos, and perhaps in the deification of man through Christ (Orig. c. Cels. iii. 28
sub. fin.), a thought which Athanasius brings forward in his later at least as often as in his
earlier writings (see note on de Incarn. 54. 3). On the whole, however, the tendency of
Athanasius in the course of the Arian controversy is to move away from Origen and toward
the Western habit of thought : this is especially exemplified in the history of the term
' In heathen countries the case is different. An English translation was made a few years since for dissemination in India
by the members of the Oxford Mission at Calcutta.
CONTRA GENTES. 3
Hypostasis (see above, Prolegg. chap. II. § 3 (2) b, and below Introd. to Tom. ad Ant. ;
cf. also Introductions to de Sent. Dionys. and ad Afros). Some of the more characteristic
speculations of Origen have left no trace even on the earliest works of Athanasius (see
Introd. to the next Treatise). The translation (here as elsewhere, except where it is otherwise
stated) is from the Benedictine text.
The contents of the contra Gefiies fall into the following scheme : —
PAGE
§ I. — Introduction. Statement of the purpose of the treatise 4.
§§ 2— 29.— FIRST PART. Refutation of Heathenism.
§§ 2 — 5. a. The nature ofevit.
§ 2., (l) Not substantially, nor originally existent 4
§§3. 4* (2) Its history ... 5
§5. (3) Its essential nature, viz. a determination of will 6
§ 6. False views of evil refuted.
(1) Heathen: Evil natural „ 6
(2) Heretical : Dualism : ^ 7
§7. This latter refuted, and the doctrine of the Church stated 7
1). Idolatry.
|§ 8 — 10. (i) Its history and varieties 7
§§ II, 12. (2) Immorality of its mythologies lO
§§13, 14. (3) Folly of image worship II
§15. (4) Heathen deities, as popularly represented, are not gods 12
§§ 16 — 22. c. Argtiments in favour of heathenism considered.
§§ 16, 17. (i) ' Immoral features due to the poets.' But (a) they come to us with the
same credentials as the names and existence of the gods ; (3) The poets
more likely to have invented the divine than the human features of these
beings 12
§ 18. (2) 'The gods worshipped for beneficent inventions,' &c. But this is no title
to deification 13
§ 19. (3) ' Images {a) necessary to represent invisible beings, {b) a means of inter-
course with the gods ' — I4
§§ 20—22. This refuted « I4
§§23 — 26. d. Supplementary proofs against idolatry, (i) Variety of cults 16
(2) Human sacrifice. (3) The gods the cause of moral corruption 17
/. Theism established against philosophic pantheism.
§27. (i) No part of the universe identical with God .„ 18
§28. (2) The whole universe not identical with God 18
§29. (3) Nature and God distinct 19
^§ 30—34- SECOND PART. Knowledge of God Possible, The Soul.
§30. (a) The soul of man akin to God 20
(b) P7-oofs of its existence : —
§31. (i) Man and animals 20
(2) Objectivity of thought 20
§32. (3) Soul and body 21
§33. (f) Proofs of its immortality 21
§ 34. (d) The soul, the mirror of the Logos, can know God, at least through creation 22
^§ 35—44' THIRD PART. Nature a Revelation of God.
I. Nature a revelation : —
§§ 35-37- («) Of God 22
§§38,39. (P) Of His Unity 24
§40. (<:) Of the Reason or ' Word ' of God 25
§§ 41, 42. 2. The cosmic function of the Word, original and permanent 26
§§43, 44. Three similes to illustrate this ~ 27
l§ 45—47- CONCLUSION :—
a. The teaching of Scripture on the subjects of Parts I. and III 28
b. Transition to the theme of the next treatise 29
B 2
AGAINST THE HEATHEN.
§ I. Introduction: — The purpose of the book a
vindication of Christian doctriiie, and especially
of the Cross, against the scoffing objection of
Gentiles. The effects of this doctrine its main
vindication.
The knowledge of our religion and of the
truth of things is independently manifest rather
than in need of human teachers, for almost day
by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests
itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of
Christ. 2. Still, as you nevertheless desire to
hear about it, Macarius ^ come let us as we
may be able set forth a few points of the faith
of Christ : able though you are to find it out
from the divine oracles, but yet generously
desiring to hear from others as well. 3. For
although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are
sufficient ^ to declare the truth, — while there are
other works of our blessed teachers 3 compiled
for this purpose, if he meet with which a man
will gain some knowledge of the interpretation
of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he
wishes to know, — still, as we have not at present
in our hands the compositions of our teachers,
we must communicate in writing to you what
we learned from them, — the faith, namely, of
Christ the Saviour ; lest any should hold cheap
the doctrine taught among us, or think faith
in Christ unreasonable. For this is what
the Gentiles traduce and scoff at, and laugh
loudly at us, insisting on the one fact of the
Cross of Christ ; and it is just here that one
must pity their want of sense, because when
they traduce the Cross of Christ they do not
see that its power has filled all the world,
and that by it the effects of the knowledge of
God are made manifest to all. 4. For they
would not have scoffed at such a fact,
had they, too, been men who genuinely gave
' See de Incarn. i and note there.
2 Constantly insisted on by Athan. C£ de Incarn. s, and
note on de Deer. 32.
3 De Incarn. 56. 2 ; he may also be referring to works from
the Alex, school, such as Grig, de Princ.
heed to His divine Nature. On the contrary,
they in their turn would have recognised this
man as Saviour of the world, and that the Cross
has been not a disaster, but a healing of Crea-
tion. 5. For if after the Cross all idolatry was
overthrown, while every manifestation of demons
is driven away by this Sign -», and Christ alone
is worshipped and the Father known through
Him, and, while gainsayers are put to shame. He
daily invisibly wins over the souls of these
gainsayerss, — how, one might fairly ask them, is
it still open to us to regard the matter as
human, instead of confessing that He Who
ascended the Cross is Word of God and Saviour
of the World? But these men seem to me quite
as bad as one who should traduce the sun when
covered by clouds, while yet wondering at his
light, seeing how the whole of creation is illu
mined by him. 6. For as the light is noble,
and the sun, the chief cause of light, is nobler
still, so, as it is a divine thing for the whole
world to be filled with his knowledge, it follows
that the orderer and chief cause of such an
achievement is God and the Word of God.
7. We speak then as lies within our power,
first refuting the ignorance of the unbelieving ;
so that what is false being refuted, the truth
may then shine forth of itself, and that you
yourself, friend, may be reassured that you have
believed what is true, and in coming to know
Christ have not been deceived. Moreover, I
think it becoming to discourse to you, as a
lover of Christ, about Christ, since I am sure
that you rate faith in and knowledge of Him
above anything else whatsoever.
§ 2. Evil no part of the essential nature of things.
The oj-iginal creation and constitution of man
in grace and in the knowledge of God.
In the beginning wickedness did not exist.
Nor indeed does it exist even now in those who
are holy, nor does it in any way belong to their
4 Cf. de Incarn. 47. 2, 48. 3, Vit.Ant. passim.
5 Cf. de Incarn. 50. 3, Si- 3. &c.
AGAINST THE HEATHEN.
5
nature. But men later on began to contrive it,
and to elaborate it to their own hurt. Whence
also they devised the invention of idols, treating
what was not as though it were. 2. For God,
Maker of all and King of all, that has His
Being beyond^ all substance and human dis-
covery, inasmuch as He is good and exceeding
noble, made, through His own Word our Saviour
Jesus Christ, the human race after His own
image, and constituted man able to see and
know realities by means of this assimilation to
Himself; giving him also a conception ^ and
knowledge even of His own eternity, in order
that, preserving his nature intact, he might not
ever either depart from his idea of God, nor
recoil from the communion of the holy ones ;
but having the grace of Him that gave it,
having also God's own power from the Word of
the Father, he might rejoice and have fellow-
ship with the Deity, hving the life of im-
mortality unharmed and truly blessed. For
having nothing to hinder his knowledge of
the Deity, he ever beholds, by his purity, the
Image of the Father, God the Word, after
Whose image he himself is made. He is awe-
struck as he contemplates that Providence^
which through the Word extends to the uni-
verse, being raised above the things of sense
and every bodily appearance, but cleaving to
the divine and thought-perceived things in the
heavens by the pow^r of his mind. 3. For
when the mind of men does not hold con-
verse with bodies, nor has mingled with it from
without aught of their lust, but is wholly above
them, dwelling with itself as it was made to
begin with, then, transcending the things of
sense and all things human, it is raised up on
high ; and seeing the Word, it sees in Him also
the Father of the Word, taking pleasure in con-
templating Him, and gaining renewal by its
desire toward Him ; 4. exactly as the first of
men created, the one who was named Adam
in Hebrew, is described in the Holy Scriptures
as having at the beginning had his mind to
God-ward in a freedom unembarrassed by
shame, and as associating with the holy ones
in that contemplation of things perceived by
the mind which he enjoyed in the place where
he was — the place which the holy Moses called
in figure a Garden. So purity of soul is suffi-
cient of itself to reflect God, as the Lord also
says, " Blessed are the pure in heart, for they
shall see God."
§ 3. The decline of inanfrom the above condition,
owing to his absorption in material things.
Thus then, as we have said, the Creator
fashioned the race of men, and thus meant it to
6 See Grig. c. Cels. vii. 42 sgq. de Princ. I. i.
7 Restored in Christ, see \ 34.
8 Cf. E^. ^g. IS, Apol. Fug. passim, Orat. iii. 37.
remain. But men, making light of better things,
and holding back from apprehending them,
began to seek in preference things nearer to
themselves. 2. But nearer to themselves were
the body and its senses ; so that while removing
their mind from the things perceived by thought,
they began to regard themselves ; and so doing,
and holding to the body and the other things
of sense, and deceived as it were in their own
surroundings, they fell into lust of themselves,
preferring what was their own to the contem-
plation of what belonged to God. Having then
made themselves at home in these things, and
not being willing to leave what was so near to
them, they entangled their soul with bodily
pleasures, vexed and turbid with all kind of
lusts, while they wholly forgot the power they
originally had from God. 3. But the truth of
this one may see from the man who was first
made, according to what the holy Scriptures
tell us of him. For he also, as long as he kept
his mind to God, and the contemplation of
God, turned away from the contemplation of
the body. But when, by counsel of the serpent,
he departed from the consideration of God, and
began to regard himself, then they not only
fell to bodily lust, but knew that they were
naked, and knowing, were ashamed. But they
knew that they were naked, not so much of
clothing as that they were become stripped of
the contemplation of divine things, and had
transferred their understanding to the con-
traries. For having departed from the con-
sideration of the one and the true, namely,
God, and from desire of Him, they had thence-
forward embarked in divers lusts and in those
of the several bodily senses. 4. Next, as is
apt to happen, having formed a desire for each
and sundry, they began to be habituated to
these desires, so that they were even afraid to
leave them : whence the soul became subject
to cowardice and alarms, and pleasures and
thoughts of mortality. For not being willing to
leave her lusts, she fears death and her separ-
ation from the body. But again, from lusting,
and not meeting with gratification, she learned
to commit murder and wrong. We are then
led naturally to shew, as best we can, how she
does this.
§ 4. The gradual abasement of the Soul from
Truth to Falsehood by the abuse of her free-
dom of Choice.
Having departed from the contemplation of
the things of thought, and using to the full
the several activities of the body, and being
pleased with the contemplation of the body,
and seeing that pleasure is good for her, she
was misled and abused the name of good,
and thought that pleasure was the very es-
CONTRA GENTES.
sence of good : just as though a man out of
his mind and asking for a sword to use
against all he met, were to think that soundness
of mind. 2. But having fallen in love with
pleasure, she began to work it out in various
ways. For being by nature mobile, even though
she have turned away from what is good, yet she
does not lose her mobility. She moves then,
no longer according to virtue or so as to see
God, but imagining false things, she makes a
novel use of her power, abusing it as a means
to the pleasures she has devised, since she is
after all made with power over herself. 3. For
she is able, as on the one hand to incline to
what is good, so on the other to reject it ; but in
rejecting the good she of course entertains the
thought of what is opposed to it, for she cannot
at all cease from movement, being, as I said be-
fore, mobile by nature. And knowing her own
power over herself, she sees that she is able to
use the members of her body in either direction,
both toward what is, or toward what is not.
4. But good is, while evil is not ; by what is,
then, I mean what is good, inasmuch as it has
its pattern in God Who is. But by what is not
I mean what is evil, in so far as it consists in a
false imagination in the thoughts of men. For
though the body has eyes so as to see Creation,
and by its entirely harmonious construction to
recognise the Creator ; and ears to listen to the
divine oracles and the laws of God ; and hands
both to perform works of necessity and to raise
to God in prayer ; yet the soul, departing from
the contemplation of what is good and from
moving in its sphere, wanders away and moves
toward its contraries. 5. Then seeing, as I said
before, and abusing her power, she has per-
ceived that she can move the members of the
body also in an opposite way : and so, instead
of beholding the Creation, she turns the eye to
lusts, shewing that she has this power too ; and
thinking that by the mere fact of moving she is
maintaining her own dignity, and is doing no
sin in doing as she pleases ; not knowing that
she is made not merely to move, but to move
in the right direction. For this is why an
apostolic utterance assures us " All things are
lawful, but not all things are expedient 9."
§ 5. £v27, then, consists essentially in the choice of
what is lower in p7-eference to 7uhat is higher.
But the audacity of men, having regard not
to what is expedient and becoming, but to what
is possible for it, began to do the contrary ;
whence, moving their hands to the contrary,
it made them commit murder, and led away
their hearing to disobedience, and their other
members to adultery instead of to lawful pro-
9 I Cor. X. 23.
creation ; and the tongue, instead of right
speaking, to slander and insult and perjury;
the hands again, to stealing and striking fellow-
men ; and the sense of smell to many sorts
of lascivious odours ; the feet, to be swift
to shed blood, and the belly to drunkenness
and insatiable gluttony ^ 2. All of which
things are a vice and sin of the soul : neither
is there any cause of them at all, but only
the rejection of better things. For just as if
a charioteer^, having mounted his chariot on
the race-course, were to pay no attention to the
goal, toward which he should be driving, but,
ignoring this, simply were to drive the horse as
he could, or in other words as he would, and
often drive against those he met, and often
down steep places, rushing wherever he im-
pelled himself by the speed of the team, think-
ing that thus running he has not missed the
goal, — for he regards the running only, and
does not see that he has passed wide of the
goal ; — so the soul too, turning from the way
toward God, and driving the members of the
body beyond what is proper, or rather, driven
herself along with them by her own doing, sins
and makes mischief for herself, not seeing that
she has strayed from the way, and has swerved
from the goal of truth, to which the Christ-
bearing man, the blessed Paul, was looking
when he said, " I press on toward the goal unto
the prize of the high calling of Christ Jesus ^ : "
so that the holy man, making the good his mark,
never did what was evil.
§ 6. False views of the nature of evil : viz.y
that evil is sofnething in the nature of things.,
and has substantive existence, {a) Heathen
thinkers : {evil resides in matter'). Their refu-
tation, {b) Heretical teachers : {Dualism).
Refutation from Scripture.
Now certain of the Greeks, having erred
from the right way, and not having known
Christ, have ascribed to evil a substantive and
independent existence. In this they make a
double mistake : either in denying the Creator
to be maker of all things, if evil had an inde-
pendent subsistence and being of its own ; or
again, if they mean that He is maker of all
things, they will of necessity admit Him to be
maker of evil also. For evil, according to
them, is included among existing things. 2. But
this must appear paradoxical and impossible.
For evil does not come from good, nor is it in,
or the result of, good, since in that case it
would not be good, being mixed in its nature
or a cause of evil, 3. But the sectaries, who
have fallen away from the teaching of the
I Rom. iii. lo foil. =* Cf. Plato Phcedrus 246 C, 248 A>
253 E, 254. 3 Phil. iii. 14.
AGAINST THE HEATHEN.
Church, and made shipwreck concerning the
Faith '^j they also wrongly think that evil has
a substantive existence. But they arbitrarily
imagine another god besides the true One, the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that he is
the unmade producer of evil and the head of
wickedness, who is also artificer of Creation.
But these men one can easily refute, not only
from the divine Scriptures, but also from the
human understanding itself, the very source of
these their insane imaginations. 4. To begin
with, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ says
in His own gospels confirming the words of
Moses: "The Lord God is one;" and "I
thank thee. Father, Lord of heaven and earths"
But if God is one, and at the same time Lord
of heaven and earth, how could there be
another God beside Him ? or what room will
there be for the God whom they suppose, if the
one true God fills all things in the compass of
heaven and earth ? or how could there be
another creator of that, whereof, according to
the Saviour's utterance, the God and Father of
Christ is Himself Lord. 5. Unless indeed
they would say that it were, so to speak, in
an equipoise, and the evil god capable of
getting the better of the good God. But if
they say this, see to what a pitch of impiety
they descend. For when powers are equal, the
superior and better cannot be discovered. For
if the one exist even if the other will it not,
both are equally strong and equally weak :
equally, because the very existence of either is
a defeat of the other's will : weak, because what
happens is counter to their wills : for while the
good God exists in spite of the evil one, the
evil god exists equally in spite of the good.
§ 7. Refutaimt of dualism from reason. Impos-
sibility of two Gods. The truth as to evil is
that which the Church teaches : that it origin-
ates, and resides, iii the perverted choice of the
darkened soul.
More especially, they are exposed to the
following reply. If visible things are the
work of the evil god, what is the work of
the good God? for nothing is to be seen
except the work of the Artificer. Or what
evidence is there that the good God exists
at all, if there are no works of His by
which He may be known ? for by his works
the artificer is known. 2. Or how could
two principles exist, contrary one to another :
or what is it that divides them, for them to
exist apart ? For it is impossible for them to
exist together, because they are mutually de-
structive. But neither can the one be included
in the other, their nature being unmixed and
4 r Tim. i. 19.
S Mark xii. 29 ; Matt. xi. 25.
unlike. Accordingly that which divides them
will evidently be of a third nature, and itself
God. But of wliat nature could this third
something be ? good or evil ? It will be im-
possible to determine, for it cannot be of the
nature of both. 3. This conceit of theirs, then,
being evidently rotten, the truth of the Church's
theology must be manifest : that evil has not
from the beginning been with God or in God,
nor has any substantive existence ; but that
men, in default of the vision of good, began to
devise and imagine for themselves what was
not, after their own pleasure. 4. For as if a
man, when the sun is shining, and the whole
earth illumined by his light, were to shut fast
his eyes and imagine darkness where no dark-
ness exists, and then walk wandering as if in
darkness, often falling and going down steep
places, thinking it was dark and not light, — for,
imagining that he sees, he does not see at all ;
— so, too, the soul of man, shutting fast her
eyes, by which she is able to see God, has
imagined evil for herself, and moving therein,
knows not that, thinking she is doing some-
thing, she is doing nothing. For she is imag-
ining what is not, nor is she abiding in her
original nature ; but what she is is evidently the
product of her own disorder. 5. For she is
made to see God, and to be enlightened by
Him ; but of her own accord in God's stead
she has sought corruptible things and darkness,
as the Spirit says somewhere in writing, " God
made man upright, but they have sought out
many inventions^." Thus it has been then
that men from the first discovered and contrived
and imagined evil for themselves. But it is
now time to say how they came down to the
madness of idolatry, that you may know that
the invention of idols is wholly due, not to
good but to evil. But what has its origin in
evil can never be pronounced good in any
point, — being evil altogether.
§ 8. The origin of idolatry is similar. The soul,
materialised by forgetting God, aiid engrossed
in earthly things, makes them into gods. The
race of men descends into a hopeless depth of
delusion and superstition.
Now the soul of mankind, not satisfied with
the devising of evil, began by degrees to venture
upon what is worse still. For having experience
of diversities of pleasures, and girt about with
oblivion of things divine ; being pleased more-
over and having in view the passions of the
body, and nothing but things present and
opinions about them, ceased to think that any-
thing existed beyond what is seen, or that any-
thing was good save things temporal and bodily ;
6 Eccl. vii. 29.
8
CONTRA GENTES.
so turning away and forgetting that she was in
the image of the good God, she no longer, by
the power which is in her, sees God the Word
after whose likeness she is made ; but having
departed from herself, imagines and feigns what
is not 2. For hiding, by the complications of
bodily lusts, the mirror which, as it were, is in
her, by which alone she had the power of seeing
the Image of the Father, she no longer sees
what a soul ought to behold, but is carried
about by everything, and only sees the things
which come under the senses. Hence, weighted
with all fleshly desire, and distracted among the
impressions of these things, she imagines that
the God Whom her understanding has forgotten
is to be found in bodily and sensible things,
giving to things seen the name of God, and
glorifying only those things which she desires
and which are pleasant to her eyes. 3. Accord-
ingly, evil is the cause which brings idolatry in
its train ; for men, having learned to contrive
evil, which is no reality in itself, in like manner
feigned for themselves as gods beings that had
no real existence. Just, then, as though a man
had plunged into the deep, and no longer saw
the light, nor what appears by light, because
his eyes are turned downwards, and the water is
all above him ; and, perceiving only the things
in the deep, thinks that nothing exists beside
them, but that the things he sees are the only
true realities ; so the men of former time, having
lost their reason, and plunged into the lusts
and imaginations of carnal things, and forgotten
the knowledge and glory of God, their reasoning
being dull, or rather following unreason, made
gods for themselves of things seen, glorifying
the creature rather than the Creator?, and
deifying the works rather than the Master, God,
their Cause and Artificer. 4. But just as, ac-
cording to the above simile, men who plunge
into the deep, the deeper they go down, ad-
vance into darker and deeper places, so it is with
mankind. For they did not keep to idolatry
in a simple form, nor did they abide in that
with which they began ; but the longer they
went on in their first condition, the more new
superstitions they invented : and, not satiated
with the first evils, they again filled themselves
with others, advancing further in utter shameful-
ness, and surpassing themselves in impiety.
But to this the divine Scripture testifies when it
says, " When the wicked cometh unto the depth
of evils, he despiseth^."
§9. The various developments of idolatry : worship
of the heavenly bodies, the elements, natural
objects, fabulous creatures, personified lusts,
men living and dead. The case of Antinous,
and of the deified Emperors.
For now the understanding of mankind
7 Rom. ;. 25.
8 Prov. xviii. 3.
leaped asunder from God ; and going lower in
their ideas and imaginations, they gave the
honour due to God first to the heaven and the
sun and moon and the stars, thinking them to
be not only gods, but also the causes of the
other gods lower than themselves?. Then,
going yet lower in their dark imaginations,
they gave the name of gods to the upper aether
and the air and the things in the air. Next,
advancing further in evil, they came to celebrate
as gods the elements and the principles of which
bodies are composed, heat and cold and dryness
and wetness. 2. But just as they who have
fallen flat creep in the slime like land-snails, so
the most impious of mankind, having fallen
lower and lower from the idea of God, then set
up as gods men, and the forms of men, some
still living, others even after their death. More-
over, counselling and imagining worse things
still, they transferred the divine and super-
natural name of God at last even to stones and
stocks, and creeping things both of land and
water, and irrational wild beasts, awarding to
them every divine honour, and turning from the
true and only real God, the Father of Christ.
3. Butwould that even there the audacityof these
foolish men had stopped short, and that they had
not gone further yet in impious self-confusion.
For to such a depth have some fallen in their
understanding, to such darkness of mind, that
they have even devised for themselves, and
made gods of things that have no existence at
all, nor any place among things created. For
mixing up the rational with the irrational, and
combining things unlike in nature, they worship
the result as gods, such as the dog-headed and
snake-headed and ass-headed gods among the
Egyptians, and the ram-headed Ammon among
the Libyans. While others, dividing apart the
portions of men's bodies, head, shoulder, hand,
and foot, have set up each as gods and deified
them, as though their religion were not satisfied
with the whole body in its integrity. 4. But
others, straining impiety to the utmost, have
deified the motive of the invention of these
things and of their own wickedness, namely,
pleasure and lust, and worship them, such as
their Eros, and the Aphrodite at Paphos.
While some of them, as if vying with them in
depravation, have ventured to erect into gods
their rulers or even their sons, either out of
honour for their princes, or from fear of their
tyranny, such as the Cretan Zeus, of such renown
among them, and the Arcadian Hermes ; and
among the Indians Dionysus, among the Egyp-
tians Isis and Osiris and Horus, and in our own
9 For the following chapters Dollinger, ' The Gentile and the
Jew,' is a rich mine of illustration. The recently published
' Manual of the History of Religions,' by Prof. Chantepie de la
Saussaye (Eng. Tra. pub. by Longmans), summarises the best
results of recent research.
AGAINST THE HEATHEN.
time Antinous, favourite of Hadrian, Emperor
of the Romans, whom, although men know he
was a mere man, and not a respectable man,
but on the contrary, full of licentiousness, yet
they worship for fear of him that enjoined it.
For Hadrian having come to sojourn in the
land of Egypt, when Antinous the minister of
his pleasure died, ordered him to be worshipped;
being indeed himself in love with the youth even
after his death, but for all that offering a con-
vincing exposure of himself, and a proof against
all idolatry, that it was discovered among men
for no other reason than by reason of the lust of
them that imagined it. According as thewisdom
of God testifies beforehand when it says, " The
devising of idols was the beginning of fornica-
tion '." 5. And do not wonder, nor think what
we are saying hard to believe, inasmuch as it
is not long since, even if it be not still the case,
that the Roman Senate vote to those emperors
who have ever ruled them from the beginning,
either all of them, or such as they wish and
decide, a place among the gods, and decree
them to be worshipped ^ For those to whom
they are hostile, they treat as enemies and call
men, admitting their real nature, while those
who are popular with them they order to be
worshipped on account of their virtue, as though
they had it in their own power to make gods,
though they are themselves men, and do not
profess to be other than mortal. 6. Whereas
if they are to make gods, they ought to be
themselves gods ; for that which makes must
needs be better than that which it makes, and
he that judges is of necessity in authority over
him that is judged, while he that gives, at any
rate that which he has, confers a favour, just as,
of course, every king, in giving as a favour what
he has to give, is greater and in a higher posi-
tion than those who receive. If then they
decree whomsoever they please to be gods,
they ought first to be gods themselves. But
the strange thing is this, that they themselves,
by dying as men, expose the falsehood of their
own vote concerning those deified by them.
§ 10. Similar human origin of the Greek gods, by
decree of Theseus. The process by which
mortals become deified.
But this custom is not a new one, nor did it
begin from the Roman Senate : on the contrary,
it had existed previously from of old, and was
formerly practised for the devising of idols.
For the gods renowned from of old among the
Greeks, Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Hephaestus,
Hermes, and, among females, Hera and
Demeter and Athena and Artemis, were de-
creed the title of gods by the order of Theseus,
' Wisd. xiv. 12.
2 Constantine was the last Emperor officially deified (D.C.B.,
I. 649), but even Theodosius is raised to heaven by the courtly Clau-
dian Carm. de iii Cons. Honor. 163 sqq.\ cf. Gwatkin, p. 54, note.
of whom Greek history tells us 3 ; and so the
men who pass such decrees die like men and
are mourned for, while those in whose favour
they are passed are worshipped as gods.
What a height of inconsistency and madness !
knowing who passed the decree, they pay
greater honour to those who are the subjects of
it. 2. And would that their idolatrous mad-
ness had stopped short at males, and that they
had not brought down the title of deity to
females. For even women, whom it is not safe
to admit to deliberation about public affairs,
they worship and serve with the honour due to
God, such as those enjoined by Theseus as
above stated, and among the Egyptians ♦ Isis
and the Maid and the Younger ones, and
among others Aphrodite. For the names of
the others I do not consider it modest even to
mention, full as they are of all kind of gro-
tesqueness. 3. For many, not only in ancient
times but in our own also, having lost their
beloved ones, brothers and kinsfolk and wives ;
and many women who had lost their husbands,
all of whom nature proved to be mortal men,
made representations of them and devised
sacrifices, and consecrated them ; while later
ages, moved by the figure and the brilliancy
of the artist, worshipped them as gods,
thus falling into inconsistency with nature^.
For whereas their parents had mourned for
them, not regarding them as gods (for had
they known them to be gods they would
not have lamented them as if they had
perished; for this was why they represented
them in an image, namely, because they not
only did not think them gods, but did not
believe them to exist at all, and in order that
the sight of their form in the image might con-
sole them for their being no more), yet the
foolish people pray to them as gods and invest
them with the honour of the true God. 4. For
example, in Egypt, even to this day, the death-
dirge is celebrated for Osiris and Horus and
Typho and the others. And the caldrons ^ at
Dodona, and the Corybantes in Crete, prove
that Zeus is no god but a man, and a man
born of a cannibal father. And, strange to
say, even Plato, the sage admired among the
Greeks, with all his vaunted understanding
about God, goes down with Socrates to
3 This is probably a reference to the lepa a.va.y(ia.^i\ of Eu-
hemerus, which Christian apologists commonly took as genuine
history: see § 12, note i.
4 Cf. de la Saussaye, \ 51. Isis, as goddess of the earth, cor-
responded to Demeter; as goddess of the dead, to the Kopi;
(Persephone).
5 The NetoTe'pa is a puzzle. The most likely suggestion IS
that of Montfaucon, who refers it to Cleopatra, who via 'lo-i?
exp^Hiari^e (Plut. Vit. Anton.). He cites also a coin of M. Antony,
on which Cleopatra is figured as Sea v^uiripa. Several such are
given by Vaillant, de Nuinis7ii. Cleopatr. 1S9. She was not the
first of her name to adopt this style, see Head Hist. Num. pp.
716, 717. The text might be rendered ' Isis, both the Maid and
the Younger.' <> Cf. Wisd. xiv. 12 sqq., quoted below.
7 Cf. Greg. Nar. Or. v. 32, p. 168 c, and Diet. G. and R.
Geog. I. p. 783 a.
lO
CONTRA GENTES.
Peiraus^ to worship Artemis, a figment of
man's art.
§11. The deeds of heathen deities, and particu-
larly of Zeus.
But of these and such Uke inventions of
idolatrous madness, Scripture tauglit us before-
hand long ago, when it said 9, " The devising of
idols was the beginning of fornication, and
the invention of them, the corruption of life.
For neither were they from the beginning,
neither shall they be for ever. For the vain-
glory of men they entered into the world, and
therefore shall they come shortly to an end.
For a father afflicted with untimely mourning
when he hath made an image of his child
soon taken away, now honoured him as a
god which was then a dead man, and de-
livered to those that were under him ceremo-
nies and sacrifices. Thus in process of time
an ungodly custom grown strong was kept as
a law. And graven images were worshipped
by the commands of kings. Whom men could
not honour in presence because they dwelt
afar off", they took the counterfeit of his visage
from afar, and made an express image of the
king whom they honoured, to the end that
by this their forwardness they might flatter
him that was absent as if he were present.
Also the singular diligence of the artificer
did help to set forward the ignorant to more
superstition : for he, peradventure, wilhng to
please one in authority, forced all his skill
to make the resemblance of the best fashion :
and so the multitude, allured by the grace of
the work, took him now for a god, which
a little before was but honoured as a man :
and this was an occasion to deceive the
world, for men serving either calamity or
tyranny, did ascribe unto stones and stocks
the incommunicable Name." 2. The begin-
ning and devising of the invention of idols
having been, as Scripture witnesses, of such
sort, it is now time to shew thee the refutation
of it by proofs derived not so much from with-
out as from these men's own opinions about
the idols. For to begin at the lowest point, if
one were to take the actions of them they call
gods, one would find that they were not only
no gods, but had been even of men the most
contemptible. For what a thing it is to see
the loves and licentious actions of Zeus in the
poets ! What a thing to hear of him, on the one
hand carrying off Ganymede and committing
stealthy adulteries, on the other in panic and
alarm lest the walls of the Trojans should be
destroyed against his intentions ! What a thing
to see him in grief at the death of his son
« Plat. Re^. I. adinit.
9 Wisd. xiv. 12 sqq.
Sarpedon, and wishing to succour him without
being able to do so, and, when plotted against
by the other so-called gods, namely, Athena
and Hera and Poseidon, succoured by Thetis,
a woman, and by ^gaeon of the hundred hands,
and overcome by pleasures, a slave to women,
and for their sakes running adventures in dis-
guises consisting of brute beasts and creeping
things and birds ; and again, in hiding on
account of his father's designs upon him, or
Cronos bound by him, or him again mutilating
his father ! Why, is it fitting to regard as a god
one who has perpetrated such deeds, and who
stands accused of things which not even the
public laws of the Romans allow those to do
who are merely men ?
§12. Other shameful actions ascribed to heathen
deities. All prove that they are but men
of former times, and not even good men.
For, to mention a few instances out of many
to avoid prolixity, who that saw his lawless and
corrupt conduct toward Semele, Leda, Alcmene,
Artemis, Leto, Maia, Europe, Danae, and
Antiope, or that saw what he ventured to take
in hand with regard to his own sister, in having
the same woman as wife and sister, would not
scorn him and pronounce him worthy of death ?
For not only did he commit adultery, but he
deified and raised to heaven those born of his
adulteries, contriving the deification as a veil
for his lawlessness : such as Dionysus, Hera-
cles, the Dioscuri, Hermes, Perseus, and
Soteira. 2. Who, that sees the so-called gods
at irreconcileable strife among themselves at
Troy on account of the Greeks and Trojans,
will fail to recognise their feebleness, in that
because of their mutual jealousies they egged
on even mortals to strife ? Who, that sees
Ares and Aphrodite wounded by Diomed, or
Hera and Aidoneus from below the earth,
whom they call a god, wounded by Heracles,
Dionysus by Perseus, Athena by Areas, and
Hephaestus hurled down and going lame, will
not recognise their real nature, and, while re-
fusing to call them gods, be assured (when he
hears that they are corruptible and passible)
that they are nothing but men% and feeble
men too, and admire those that inflicted the
wounds rather than the wounded ? 3. Or who
that sees the adultery of Ares with Aphrodite,
and Hephcestus contriving a snare for the two,
and the other so-called gods called by He-
I This explanation of gods as deified men is known as Eu-
liemerism, from Euhemerus, who broached the theory in the third
century, B.C. (supra, lo, note i) ; but 'there were Euhemeiists
in Greece before Euhemerus' (Jowett's Plato, 2. loi). The Fathers
very commonly adopt the theory, for which, however, there are
very slight grounds. Such cases as those of Antinous and the
Emperors, as well as the legends of heroes and demigods, gave it
some plausibility (see Dolhnger, Gentile and Jew, vol. i. p. 344,
Eng. TrJ.
AGAINST THE HEATHEN.
II
phaestLis to view the adultery, and coming and
seeing tlieir licentiousness, would not laugh and
recognise their worthless character ? Or who
would not laugh at beholding the drunken folly
and misconduct of Heracles toward Omphale ?
For their deeds of pleasure, and their uncon-
scionable loves, and their divine images in
gold, silver, bronze, iron, stone, and wood, we
need not seriously expose by argument, since
the facts are abominable in themselves, and
are enough taken alone to furnish proof of the
deception ; so that one's principal feeling is
pity for those deceived about them. 4. For,
hating the adulterer who tampers with a wife
of their own, they are not ashamed to deify the
teachers of adultery ; and refraining from incest
themselves they worship those who practise it ;
and admitting that the corrupting of children is
an evil, they serve those who stand accused of it;
and do not blush to ascribe to those they call
gods things which the laws forbid to exist even
among men.
§ 13. The folly of image worship and its
dishonour to art.
Again, in worshi])ping things of wood and
stone, they do not see that, while they tread
under foot and burn what is in no way different,
they call portions of these materials gods.
And what they made use of a little while ago,
they carve and worship in their folly, not seeing,
nor at all considering that they are worshipping,
not gods, but the carver's art. 2. For so long
as the stone is uncut and the wood unworked,
they walk upon the one and make frequent use
of the other for their own purposes, even for
those which are less honourable. But when
the artist has invested them with the proportions
of his own skill, and impressed upon the
material the form of man or woman, then,
thanking the artist, they proceed to worship
them as gods, having bought them from the
carver at a price. , Often, moreover, the image-
maker, as though forgetting the work he has
done himself, prays to his own productions, and
calls gods what just before he was paring and
chipping. 3. But it were better, if need were
to admire these things, to ascribe it to the art
of the skilled workman, and not to honour the
productions in preference to their producer.
For it is not the material that has adorned the
art, but the art that has adorned and deified the
material. Much juster were it, then, for them
to worship the artist than his productions, both
because his existence was prior to that of the
gods produced by art, and because they have
come into being in the form he pleased to give
them. But as it is, settuig justice aside, and
dishonouring skill and art, they worship the
products of skill and art, and when the man is
dead that made them, they honour his works as
immortal, whereas if they did not receive daily
attention they would certainly in time come to
a natural end. 4. Or how could one fail to
pity them in this also, in that seeing, they wor-
ship them that cannot see, and hearing, pray to
them that cannot hear, and born with life and
reason, men as they are, call gods things which
do not move at all, but have not even life, and,
strangest of all, in that they serve as their
masters beings whom they themselves keep
under their own power ? Nor imagine that this
is a mere statement of mine, nor that I am
maligning them ; for the verification of all this
meets the eyes, and whoever wishes to do so
may see the like.
§ 14. Image worship condemned by Scripture.
But better testimony about all this is furnished
by Holy Scripture, which tells us beforehand
when it says % " Their idols are silver and gold,
the work of men's hands. Eyes have they
and will not see ; a mouth have they and will
not speak ; ears have they and will not hear ;
noses have they and will not smell ; hands
have they and will not handle ; feet have they
and will not walk ; they will not speak through
their throat. Like unto them be they that
make them." Nor have they escaped pro-
phetic censure ; for there also is their refutation,
where the Spirit says 3, "they shall be ashamed
that have formed a god, and carved all of
them that which is vain : and all by whom
they were made are dried up : and let the
deaf ones among men all assemble and stand
up together, and let them be confounded and
put to shame together ; for the carpenter
sharpened iron, and worked it with an adze,
and fashioned it with an auger, and set it up
with the arm of his strength : and he shall
hunger and be faint, and drink no water.
For the carpenter chose out wood, and set it
by a rule, and fashioned it with glue, and
made it as the form of a man and as the
beauty of man, and set it up in his house,
wood which he had cut from the grove and
which the Lord planted, and the rain gave it
growth that it might be for men to burn, and
that he might take thereof and warm himself,
and kindle, and bake bread upon it, but the
residue they made into gods, and worshipped
them, the half whereof they had burned in
the fire. And upon the half thereof he roasted
flesh and ate and was filled, and was warmed
and said : ' It is pleasant to me, because I
am warmed and have seen the fire.' But
the residue thereof he worshipped, saying,
' Deliver me for thou art my god.' They
» Ps. cxv. 5 sqq.
3 Isa. xliv. 9 sqq. (LXX.).
12
CONTRA GENTES.
knew not nor understood, because their eyes
were dimmed that they could not see, nor
perceive with their heart ; nor did he consider
in his heart nor know in his understanding
that he had burned half thereof in the fire,
and baked bread upon the coals thereof, and
roasted flesh and eaten it, and made the
residue thereof an abomination, and they
worship it. Know that their lieart is dust
and they are deceived, and none can deliver
his soul. Behold and will ye not say, ' There
is a lie in my right hand?'" 2. How then
can they fail to be judged godless by all, who
even by the divine Scripture are accused of
impiety ? or how can they be anything but
miserable, who are thus openly convicted of
worshipping dead things instead of the truth ?
or what kind of hope have they ? or what kind
of excuse could be made for them, trusting in
things without sense or movement, which they
reverence in place of the true God ?
§ 1 5. The details about the gods conveyed in the re-
presentations of them by poets and artists shew
that they are without life, and that they are
not gods, nor even decent men and women.
For would that the artist would fashion the
gods even without shape, so that they might
not be open to so manifest an exposure of their
lack of sense. For they might have cajoled
the perception of simple folk to think the idols
had senses, were it not that they possess the
symbols of the senses, eyes for example and
noses and ears and hands and mouth, without
any gesture of actual perception and grasp of
the objects of sense. But as a matter of fact
they have these things and have them not,
stand and stand not, sit and sit not For they
have not the real action of these things, but
as their fashioner pleased, so they remain sta-
tionary, giving no sign of a god, but evidently
mere inanimate objects, set there by man's art.
2. Or would that the heralds and prophets of
these false gods, poets I mean and writers, had
simply written that they were gods, and not also
recounted their actions as an exposure of their
godlessness and scandalous life. For by the
mere name of godhead they might have
filched away the truth, or rather have caused
the mass of men to err from the truth.
But as it is, by narrating the loves and im-
moralities of Zeus, and the corruptions of
youths by the other gods, and the voluptuous
jealousies of the females, and the fears and
acts of cowardice and other wickednesses, they
merely convict themselves of narrating not
merely about no gods, but not even about re-
spectable men, but on the contrary, of telling
tales about shameful persons far removed from
what is honourable.
§16. Heathen arguments in palliation of the above:
and ( I ) ' the poets are responsible for these
unedifyi7ig tales.'' But are the names and ex-
istence of the gods any better authenticated ?
Both stand or fall together. Either the actions
must b£ defended or the deity of the gods given
lip. And the heroes are not credited with acts
inconsistent with their nature, as, on this plea,
the gods are.
But perhaps, as to all this, the impious will
appeal to the peculiar style of poets, saying
that it is the peculiarity of poets to feign what
is not, and, for the pleasure of their hearers, to
tell fictitious tales ; and that for this reason they
have composed the stories about gods. But
this pretext of theirs, even more than any other,
will appear to be superficial from what they '
themselves think and profess about these matters.
2. For if what is said in the poets is fictitious
and false, even the nomenclature of Zeus,
Cronos, Hera, Ares and the rest must be false.
For perhaps, as they say, even the names are
fictitious, and, while no such being exists as
Zeus, Cronos, or Ares, the poets feign their ex-
istence to deceive their hearers. But if the
poets feign the existence of unreal beings, how
is it that they worship them as thougli they
existed? 3. Or perhaps, once again, they will
say that while the names are not fictitious, they
ascribe to them fictitious actions. But even
this is equally precarious as a defence. For if
they made up the actions, doubtless also they
made up the names, to which they attributed
the actions. Or if they tell the truth about the
names, it follows that they tell the truth about
the actions too. In particular, they who have
said in their tales that these are gods certainly
know how gods ought to act, and would never
ascribe to gods the ideas of men, any more
than one would ascribe to water the properties
of fire ; for fire burns, whereas the nature of
water on the contrary is cold. 4. If then the
actions are worthy of gods, they that do them
must be gods ; but if they are actions of men,
and of disreputable men, such as adultery and
the acts mentioned above, they that act in such
ways must be men and not gods. For their
deeds must correspond to their natures, so that
at once the actor may be made known by his
act, and the action may be ascertainable from
his nature. So that just as a man discussing
about water and fire, and declaring their action,
would not say that water burned and fire cooled,
nor, if a man were discoursing about the sun and
the earth, would he say the earth gave light,
while the sun was sown with herbs and fruits,
but if he were to say so would exceed the ut-
most height of madness, so neither would
their writers, and especially the most eminent
AGAINST THE HEATHEN.
13
poet of all, if they really knew that Zeus and
the others were gods, invest them with such
actions as shew them to be not gods, but rather
men, and not sober men. 5. Or if, as poets,
they told falsehoods, and you are maligningthem,
why did they not also tell falsehoods about
the courage of the heroes, and feign feebleness
in the place of courage, and courage in that of
feebleness? For they ought in that case, as
with Zeus and Hera, so also to slanderously
accuse Achilles of want of courage, and to
celebrate the might of Thersites, and, while
charging Odysseus with dulness, to make out
Nestor a reckless person, and to narrate eifemi-
nate actions of Diomed and Hector, and manly
deeds of Hecuba. For the fiction and false-
hood they ascribe to the poets ought to extend
to all cases. But in fact, they kept the truth
for their men, while not ashamed to tell false-
hoods about their so-called gods. 6. And as
some of them might argue, that they are telling
falsehoods about their licentious actions, but
that in their praises, when they speak of Zeus
as father of gods, and as the highest, and the
Olympian, and as reigning in heaven, they are
not inventing but speaking truthfully ; this is a
plea which not only myself, but anybody can
refute. For the truth will be clear, in opposi-
tion to them, if we recall our previous proofs.
For while their actions prove them to be men,
the panegyrics upon them go beyond the nature
of men. The two things then are mutually
inconsistent ; for neither is it the nature of
heavenly beings to act in such ways, nor can
any one suppose that persons so acting are
gods.
§ 17. The truth probably is, that the scandalous
tales are true, while the dhnne attributes
ascribed to them are due to the flattery of the
poets.
What inference then is left to us, save that
while the panegyrics are false and flattering,
the actions told of them are true ? And the
truth of this one can ascertain by common
practice. For nobody who pronounces a pane-
gyric upon anyone accuses his conduct at the
same time, but rather, if men's actions are dis-
graceful, they praise them up with panegyrics,
on account of the scandal they cause, so that
by extravagant praise they may impose upon
their hearers, and hide the misconduct of the
others. 2. Just as if a man who has to pro-
nounce a panegyric upon someone cannot find
material for it in their conduct or in any per-
sonal qualities, on account of the scandal
attaching to these, he praises them up in another
manner, flattering them with what does not be-
long to them, so have their marvellous poets,
put out of countenance by the scandalous ac-
tions of their so-called gods, attached to them
the superhuman title, not knowing that they
cannot by their superhuman fancies veil their
human actions, but that they will rather succeed
in shewing, by their human shortcomings, that
the attributes of God do not fit them. 3. And
I am disposed to think that they have recounted
the passions and the actions of the gods even
in spite of themselves. For since they were
endeavouring to invest with what Scripture calls
the incommunicable name and honour of 4 God
them that are no gods but mortal men, and
since this venture of theirs was great and im-
pious, for this reason even against their will
they were forced by truth to set forth the pas-
sions of these persons, so • that their passions
recorded in the writings concerning them might
be in evidence for all posterity as a proof that
they were no gods.
§18. Heathen defence continued. (2) ' The gods
are worshipped for having invented the Arts of
Life.' But this is a human and natural, not
a divine, achievement. And why, on this
principle, are not all inventors deified 1
What defence, then, what proof that these
are real gods, can they offer who hold this super-
stition ? For, by what has been said just above,
our argument has demonstrated them to be men,
and not respectable men. But perhaps they will
turn to another argument, and proudly appeal
to the things useful to life discovered by them,
saying that the reason why they regard them as
gods is their having been of use to mankind.
For Zeus is said to have possessed the plastic
art, Poseidon that of the pilot, Hephsestus the
smith's, Athena that of weaving, Apollo that of
music, Artemis that of hunting, Hera dress-
making, Demeter agriculture, and others other
arts, as those who inform us about them have
related. 2. But men ought to ascribe them and
such like arts not to the gods alone but to the
common nature of mankind, for by observing
nature s men discover the arts. For even com-
mon parlance calls art an imitation of nature.
If then they have been skilled in the arts they
pursued, that is no reason for thinking them
gods, but rather for thinking them men ; for
the arts were not their creation, but in them
they, hke others, imitated nature. 3. For men
having a natural capacity for knowledge accord-
ing to the definition laid down^ concerning
them, there is nothing to surprise us if by
human intelligence, and by looking of them-
selves at their own nature and coming to know
it, they have hit upon the arts. Or if they say
4 Wisd. xiv. 21. Cf. Isa. xlii. 8, and xlviii. ii
5 <|)v<ri! is here used in a double sense.
f> By Aristotle, Top. V. ii. — iv. where man is defined as fwov
eTrio-TijM! Se/cTiKoi': compare Metaph. I. i. 'AH men by nature
desire to know.'
u
CONTRA GENTES.
that the discovery of the arts entitles them to
be proclaimed as gods, it is high time to pro-
claim as gods the discoverers of the other arts,
on the same grounds as the former were thought
worthy of such a title. For the Phoenicians
invented letters. Homer epic poetry, Zeno of
Elea dialectic, Corax of Syracuse rhetoric,
Aristjeus bee-keeping, Triptolemus the sowing
of corn, Lycurgus of Sparta and Solon of Athens
laws; while Palamedes discovered the arrange-
ment of letters, and numbers, and measures and
weights. xA.nd others imparted various other
things useful for the life of mankind, according
to the testimony of our historians. 4. If then
the arts make gods, and because of them
carved gods exist, it follows, on their shewing,
that those who at a later date discovered the
other arts must be gods. Or if they do not
deem these worthy of divine honour, but re-
cognise that they are men, it were but consistent
not to give even the name of gods to Zeus,
Hera, and the others, but to believe that they
too have been human beings, and all the more
so, inasmuch as they were not even respectable
in their day ; just as by the very fact of
sculpturing their form in statues they shew
that they are nothing else but men.
§19. The inco7tsistency of image 7(.iorship. Argu-
ments in palliation, (i) The divine nature
must be expressed in a visible sign. (2) TJie
image a means of supernatural communications
to men through Angels.
For what other form do they give them
by sculpture but that of men and women,
and of creatures lower yet and of irrational
nature, all manner of birds, beasts both tame
and wild, and creeping things, whatsoever land
and sea and the whole realm of the waters pro-
duce ? For men having fallen into the unrea-
sonableness of their passions and pleasures, and
unable to see anything beyond pleasures and
lusts of the flesh, inasmuch as they keep their
mind in the midst of these irrational things,
they imagined the divine principle to be in
irrational things, and carved a number of gods
to match the variety of their passions. 2. For
there are with them images of beasts and creep-
ing things and birds, as the interpreter of the
divine and true religion says, " They became
vain in their reasonings, and their senseless
heart was darkened. Professing themselves
to be wise, they became fools, and changed
the glory of the incorruptible God for the like-
ness of an image of corruptible man, and of
birds and four-footed beasts and creeping
things, wherefore God gave them up unto vile
passions." For having previously infected
their soul, as I said above, with the irrational-
ities of pleasures, they then came down to this
making of gods ; and, once fallen, thenceforward
as though al)andoned in their rejection of God,
thus they wallow 7 in them, and portray God, the
Father of the Word, in irrational shapes. 3. As
to which those who pass for philosophers and
men of knowledge ^ among the Greeks, while
driven to admit that their visible gods are the
forms and figures of men and of irrational
objects, say in defence that they have such
things to the end that by their means the deity
may answer them and be made manifest ;
because otherwise they could not know the
invisible God, save by such statues and rites.
4. While those 9 who profess to give still deeper
and more philosophical reasons than these say,
that the reason of idols being prepared and
fashioned is for the invocation and manifesta-
tion of divine angels and powers, that appearing
by these means they may teach men concerning
the knowledge of God ; and that they serve as
letters for men, by referring to which they may
learn to apprehend God, from the manifesta-
tion of the divine angels effected by their means.
Such then is their mythology, — for far be it from
us to call it a theology. But if one examine the
argument with care, he will find that the opinion
of these persons also, not less than that of those
previously spoken of, is false.
§20. But where does this supposed virtue of the
image reside ? in the material, or in the form,
or in the maker's skill ? Untenability of all
these views.
For one might reply to them, bringing the
case before the tribunal of truth, How does God
make answer or become known by such objects?
Is it due to the matter of which they consist, or
to the form which they possess ? For if it be
due to the matter, what need is there of the
form, instead of God manifesting Himself
through all matter without exception before
these things were fashioned? And in vain
have they built their temples to shut in a single
stone, or stock, or piece of gold, when all the
world is full of these substances. 2. But if the
superadded form be the cause of the divine
manifestation, what is the need of the material,
gold and the rest, instead of God manifesting
Himself by the actual natural animals of which
the images are the figures ? For the opinion
held about God would on the same principle
have been a nobler one, were He to manifest
7 Cf. Oral. iii. i6.
8 This may refer to Maximus of Tyre (Saussaye, § ii), orto
the lost treatise of ' the divine lamlilichus ' Hept ayaA/iarftij', which
was considered worth answering by Cliristian writers as late as the
seventh century (Philoponus in Phot. Bibl. Cod. 215).
9 This is in effect the defence of the ' Scriptor de Mysteriis'
(possibly lamblichus, see Bernays ' 2 Abhandlungen ' 1880, p. 37) :
material means of worship are a means of access directly to the
lower (or quasi-material) gods, and so indirectly to the higher.
Few men can reach the latter without the aid of their manifestation
in the lower ; n-dpeaTiv aOAus tois ivvKon to. aviXa (v. 23, cf. 14).
AGAINST THE HEATHEN.
IS
Himself by means of living animals, whether
rational or irrational, instead of being looked
for in things without hfe or motion. 3. Wherein
they commit the most signal impiety against
themselves. For while they abominate and turn
from the real animals, beasts, birds, and creeping
things, either because of their ferocity or because
of their dirtiness, yet they carve their forms
in stone, wood, or gold, and make them gods.
But it would be better for them to worship the
living things themselves, rather than to worship
their figures in stone. 4. But perhaps neither
is the case, nor is either the material or the form
the cause of the divine presence, but it is only
skilful art that summons the deity, inasmuch
as it is an imitation of nature. But if the deity
communicates with the images on account of
the art, what need, once more, of the material,
since the art resides in the men ? For if God
manifests Himself solely because of the art,
and if for this reason the images are worshipped
as gods, it would be right to worship and serve
the men who are masters of the art, inasmuch
as they are rational also, and have the skill in
themselves.
§21. The idea of communications through angels
involves yet wilder inconsistency, nor does it,
even if true, justify the worship of the image.
But as to their second and as they say pro-
founder defence, one might reasonably add as
follows. If these things are made by you, ye
Greeks, not for the sake of a self-manifestation
of God Himself, but for the sake of a presence
there of angels, why do you rank the images
by which ye invoke the powers as superior and
above the powers invoked ? For ye carve the
figures for the sake of the apprehension of God,
as ye say, but invest the actual images with the
honour and title of God, thus placing your-
selves in a profane position. 2. For while con-
fessing that the power of God transcends the
littleness of the images, and for that reason not
venturing to invoke God through them, but only
the lesser powers, ye yourselves leap over these
latter, and have bestowed on stocks and stones
the title of Him, whose presence ye feared, and
call them gods instead of stones and men's
workmanship, and worship them. For even
supposing them to serve you, as ye falsely say,
as letters for the contemplation of God, it is
not right to give the signs greater honour than
that which they signify. For neither if a man
were to write the emperor's name would it be
without risk to give to the writing more honour
than to the emperor ; on the contrary, such a
man incurs the penalty of death ; while the
writing is fashioned by the skill of the writer.
3. So also yourselves, had ye your reasoning
power in full strength, would not reduce to
matter so great a revelation of the Godhead :
but neither would ye have given to the image
greater honour than to the man that carved it.
For if there be any truth in the plea that, as
letters, they indicate the manifestation of God,
and are therefore, as indications of God, worthy
to be deified, yet far more would it be right
to deify the artist who carved and engraved
them, as being far more powerful and divine
than they, inasmuch as they were cut and
fashioned according to his will. If then the
letters are worthy of admiration, much more
does the writer exceed them in wonder, by
reason of his art and the skill of his mind. If
then it be not fitting to think that they are
gods for this reason, one must again interrogate
them about the madness concerning the idols,
demanding from them the justification for their
being in such a form.
§22. The image cannot represent the true form of
God, else God would be corruptible.
For if the reason of their being thus fashioned
is, that the Deity is of human form, why do they
invest it also with the forms of irrational crea-
tures ? Or if the form of it is that of the latter,
why do they embody it also in the images of
rational creatures ? Or if it be both at once,
and they conceive God to be of the two com-
bined, namely, that He has the forms both of
rational and of irrational, why do they separate
what is joined together, and separate the images
of brutes and of men, instead of always carving
it of both kinds, such as are the fictions in the
myths, Scylla, Charybdis, the Hippocentaur,
and the dog-headed Anubis of the Egyptians ?
For they ought either to represent them solely
of two natures in this way, or, if they have
a single form, not to falsely represent them in
the other as well. 2. And again, if their iorms
are male, why do they also invest them with
female shapes ? Or if they are of the latter,
why do they also falsify their forms as though
they were males? Or if again they are a mix-
ture of both, they ought not to be divided, but
both ought to be combined, and follow the type
of the so-called hermaphrodites, so that their
superstition should furnish beholders with a
spectacle not only of impiety and calumny, but
of ridicule as well. 2. And generally, if they
conceive the Deity to be corporeal, so that they
contrive for it and represent belly and hands
and feet, and neck also, and breasts and the
other organs that go to make man, see to what
impiety and godlessness their mind has come
down, to have such ideas of the Deity. For it
follows that it must be capable of all other
bodily casualties as well, of being cut and
divided, and even of perishing altogether But
these and like things are not properties of God,
i6
CONTRA GENTES.
but rather of earthly bodies. 3, For while God
is incorporeal and incorruptible, and immortal,
needing nothing for any purpose, these are
both corruptible, and are shapes of bodies, and
need bodily ministrations, as we said before '.
For often we see images which have grown old
renewed, and those which time, or rain, or some
or other of the animals of the earth have spoiled,
restored. In which connexion one must con-
demn their folly, in that they proclaim as gods
things of which they themselves are the makers,
and themselves ask salvation of objects which
they themselves adorn with their arts to pre-
serve them from corruption, and beg that their
own wants may be supplied by beings which
they well know need attention from them-
selves, and are not ashamed to call lords of
heaven and all the earth creatures whom they
shut up in small chambers.
§ 23. The variety of idolatrous cults proves that
they are false.
But not only from these considerations may
one appreciate their godlessness, but also from
their discordant opinions about the idols them-
selves. For if they be gods according to their
assertion and their speculations, to which of
them is one to give allegiance, and which of
them is one to judge to be the higher, so as
either to worship God with confidence, or as
they say to recognise the Deity by them without
ambiguity ? For not the same beings are called
gods among all ; on the contrary, for every
nation almost there is a separate god imagined.
And there are cases of a single district and
a single town being at internal discord about
the superstition of their idols. 2. The Phoeni-
cians, for example, do not know those who are
called gods among the Egyptians, nor do the
Egyptians worship the same idols as the
Phoenicians have. And while the Scythians
reject the gods of the Persians, the Persians
reject those of the Syrians. But the Pelasgians
also repudiate the gods in Thrace, while the
Thracians know not those of Thebes. The
Indians moreover differ from the Arabs, the
Arabs from the Ethiopians, and the Ethiopians
from the Arabs in their idols. And the Syrians
worship not the idols of the Cilicians, while the
Cappadocian nation call gods beings different
from these. And while the Bithynians have
adopted others, the Armenians have imagined
others again. And what need is there for me
to multiply examples ? The men on the con-
tinent worship other gods than the islanders,
while these latter serve other gods than those
of the main lands. 3. And, in general, every
eity and village, not knowing the gods of its
' Supra xiii. 3.
neighbours, prefers its own, and deems that
these alone are gods. For concerning the
abominations in Egypt there is no need even
to speak, as they are before the eyes of all :
how the cities have rehgions which are opposite
and incompatible, and neighbours always make
a point of worshipping the opposite of those
next to them ^ : so much so that the crocodile,
prayed to by some, is held in abomination by
their neighbours, while the hon, worshipped as
a god by others, their neighbours, so far from
worshipping, slay, if they find it, as a wild beast ;
and the fish, consecrated by some people, is
used as food in another place. And thus arise
fights and riots and frequent occasions of blood-
shed, and every indulgence of the passions
among them. 4. And strange to say, accord-
ing to the statement of historians, the very
Pelasgians, who learned from the Egyptians
the names of the gods, do not know the gods
of Egypt, but worship others instead. And,
speaking generally, all the nations that are in-
fatuated with idols have difi'erent opinions and
rehgions, and consistency is not to be met with
in any one case. Nor is this surprising. 5. For
having fallen from the contemplation of the
one God, they have come down to many and
diverse objects; and having turned from the
Word of the Father, Christ the Saviour of all,
they naturally have their understanding wander-
ing in many directions. And just as men who
have turned from the sun and are come into
dark places go round by many pathless ways,
and see not those who are present, while they
imagine those to be there who are not, and
seeing see not ; so they that have turned from
God and whose soul is darkened, have their
mind in a roving state, and like men who are
drunk and cannot see, imagine what is not
true.
§ 24. The so-called gods of one place are used as
victims in another.
This, then, is no slight proof of their real
godlessness. For, the gods for every city and
country being many and various, and the one
destroying the god of the other, the whole of
them are destroyed by all. For those who are
considered gods by some are offered as sacri-
fices and drink-offerings to the so-called gods
of others, and the victims of some are con- .
versely the gods of others. So the Egyptians
serve the ox, and Apis, a calf, and others sacri-
a Hdt. ii. 69 ; cf. Juv. Sat. xv. 36,
' numina vicinorum
Odit uterque locus.' ^ ,
This is one of the few places where Athanasius has any Egyptian
' local colour ' (cf. supra p and 10). M. Fialon is certainly too
imaginative (p. 86, contradicted p. 283), when he sees in the contra
Gentes an appreciation of the higher religious principles which the
modern science (' toute Fran5aise') of Egyptology has enabled us
to read behind the grotesque features of popular Egyptian poly
theism.
AGAINST THE HEATHEN.
17
fice these animals to Zeus. For even if they
do not sacrifice the very animals the others
have consecrated, yet by sacrificing their fellows
they seem to offer the same. The Libyans have
for god a sheep which they call Amnion, and
in other nations this animal is slain as a victim
to many gods. 2. The Indians worship Diony-
sus, using the name as a symbol for wine, and
others pour out wine as an offering to the other
gods. Others honour rivers and springs, and
above all the Egyptians pay especial honour to
water, calling them gods. And yet others, and
even the Egyptians who worship the waters, use
them to wash off the dirt from others and from
themselves, and ignominiously throw away what
is used. While nearly the whole of the Egyp-
tian system of idols consists of what are victims
to the gods of other nations, so that they are
scorned even by those others for deifying what
are not gods, but, both with others and even
among themselves, propitiatory offerings and
victims.
§ 25. Human sacrifice. Its absurdity. Its
prevalence. Its calamitous results.
But some have been led by this time to such
a pitch of irreligion and folly as to slay and to
ofter in sacrifice to their false gods even actual
men, whose figures and forms the gods are.
Nor do they see, wretched men, that the victims
they are slaying are the patterns of the gods
they make and worship, and to whom they are
offering the men. For they are offering, one
may say, equals to equals, or rather, the higher
to the lower ; for they are offering living crea-
tures to dead, and rational beings to things
without motion. 2. For the Scythians who are
called Taurians offer in sacrifice to their Virgin,
as they call her, survivors from wrecks, and such
Greeks as they catch, going thus far in impiety
against men of their own race, and thus ex-
posing the savagery of their gods, in that those
whom Providence has rescued from danger and
from the sea, they slay, almost fighting against
Providence ; because they frustrate the kindness
of Providence by their own brutal character.
But others, when they are returned victorious
from war, thereupon dividing their prisoners
into hundreds, and taking a man from each,
sacrifice to Ares the man they have picked out
from each hundred. 3. Nor is it only Scythians
who commit these abominations on account of
the ferocity natural to them as barbarians : on
the contrary, this deed is a special result of the
wickedness connected with idols and false gods.
For the Egyptians used formerly to offer victims
of this kind to Hera, and the Phoenicians and
Cretans used to propitiate Cronos in their sacri-
fices of children. And even the ancient Romans
used to worship Jupiter Latiarius, as he was
VOL. IV. I
called, with human sacrifices, and some in one
way, some in another, but all ' without exception
committed and incurred the pollution : they
incurred it by the mere perpetration of the
murderous deeds, while they polluted their own
temples by filling them with the -smoke of such
sacrifices. 4. This then was the ready source
of numerous evils to mankind. For seeing that
their false gods were pleased with these things,
they forthwith imitated their gods with like
misdoings, thinking that the imitation of su-
perior beings, as they considered them, was a
credit to themselves. Hence mankind was
thinned by murders of grown men and children,
and by licence of all kinds. For nearly every
city is full of licentiousness of all kinds, the
result of the savage character of its gods ; nor
is there one of sober life in the idols' temples ^
save only he whose licentiousness is witnessed
to by them all 3.
§26. The moral corruptions of Paganism all
admittedly originated with the gods.
Women, for example, used to sit out in old
days in the temples of Phoenicia, consecrating
to the gods there the hire of their bodies,
thinking they propitiated their goddess by for-
nication, and that they would procure her favour
by this. While men, denying their nature, and
no longer wishing to be males, put on the guise
of women, under the idea that they are thus
gratifying and honouring the Mother of their
so-called gods. But all live along with the
basest, and vie with the worst among them-
selves, and as Paul said, the holy minister of
Christ ^ : "For their women changed the natural
use into that which is against nature : and like-
wise also the men, leaving the natural use of
the woman, burned in their lust one toward
another, men with men working unseemliness."
2. But acting in this and in like ways, they
admit and prove that the life of their so-called
gods was of the same kind. For from Zeus
they have learned corruption of youth and adul-
tery, from Aphrodite fornication, from Rhea
licentiousness, from Ares murders, and from
other gods other like things, which the laws
punish and from which every sober man turns
away. Does it then remain fit to consider them
gods who do such things, instead of reckon-
ing them, for the licentiousness of their ways,
more irrational than the brutes? Is it fit to
consider their worshippers human beings, in-
I On human sacrifice see Saussaye, § 17, and Robertson Smith,
Religion of the Semites, pp. 343 sgq., especially p. 347, note 1,
for references to examples near the time of this treatise.
a Reading eiSwAei'ois e conj. Marr.
T i.e. among the licentious worshippers the lifeless image 11
the only one free trom vice, although the worshippers credit him
with divine attributes, and therefore, according to their super-
stition, uith a liceatious lite.
4 Rom. i. 26.
i8
CONTRA GENTES.
stead of pitying them as more irrational than
the brutes, and more soul-less than inanimate
things ? For had they considered the intel-
lectual part of their soul they would not have
plunged headlong into these things, nor have
denied the true God, the Father of Christ.
§27. The 7-efutation of popular Paganism being
taken as conclusive, we come to the higher form
• of tiatui'e-worship. How Nature witnesses to
God by the mutual dependence of all her parts,
which forbid us to thitik of any one ofthetn as
the supreme God. This shewn at length.
But perhaps those who have advanced be-
yond these things, and who stand in awe of
Creation, being put to shame by these expo-
sures of abominations, will join in repudiating
what is readily condemned and refuted on all
hands, but will think that they have a well-
grounded and unanswerable opinion, namely,
the worship of the universe and of the parts of
the universe. 2. For they will boast that they
worship and serve, not mere stocks and stones
and forms of men and irrational birds and
creeping things and beasts, but the sun and
moon and all the heavenly universe, and the
earth again, and the entire realm of water : and
they will say that none can shew that these at any
rate are not of divine nature, since it is evident
to all, that they lack neither life nor reason, but
transcend even the nature of mankind, inasmuch
as the one inhabit the heavens, the other the
earth. 3. It is worth while then to look into
and examine these points also ; for here, too,
our argument will find that its proof against
them holds true. But before we look, or begin
our demonstration, it suffices that Creation
almost raises its voice against them, and points
to God as its Maker and Artificer, Who reigns
over Creation and over all things, even the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ; Whom the
would-be philosophers turn from to worship
and deify the Creation which proceeded from
Him, which yet itself worships and confesses
the Lord Whom they deny on its account.
4. For if men are thus awestruck at the parts
of Creation and think that they are gods, they
might well be rebuked by the mutual depend-
ence of those parts ; which moreover makes
known, and witnesses to, the Father of the
Word, Who is the Lord and Maker of these
parts also, by the unbroken law of their obedi-
ence to Him, as the divine law also says :
"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the
firmament sheweth His handiworks." 5. But
the proof of all this is not obscure, but is clear
enough in all conscience to those the eyes of
whose understanding are not wholly disabled.
5 Ps. xix, 1.
For if a man take the parts of Creation separ-
ately, and consider each by itself, — as for ex-
ample the sun by itself alone, and the moon
apart, and again earth and air, and heat and
cold, and the essence of wet and of dry, separat-
ing them from their mutual conjunction, — he will
certainly find that not one is sufficient for itself,
but all are in need of one another's assistance,
and subsist by their mutual help. For the Sun
is carried round along with, and is contained
in, the whole heaven, and can never go beyond
his own orbit, while the moon and other stars
testify to the assistance given them by the Sun :
while the earth again evidently does not yield
her crops without rains, which in their turn
would not descend to earth without the assist-
ance of the clouds; but not even would the
clouds ever appear of themselves and subsist,
without the air. And the air is warmed by the
upper air, but illuminated and made bright by
the sun, not by itself. 6. And wells, again, and
rivers will never exist without the earth ; but
the earth is not supported upon itself, but is set
upon the realm of the waters, while this again
is kept in its place, being bound fast at the
centre of the universe. And the sea, and the
great ocean that flows outside round the whole
earth, is moved and borne by winds wherever
the force of the winds dashes it. And the
winds in their turn originate, not in themselves,
but according to those who have written on the
subject, in the air, from the burning heat and
high temperature of the upper as compared
with the lower air, and blow everywhere through
the latter. ■ 7. For as to the four elements of
which the nature of bodies is composed, heat,
that is, and cold, wet and dry, who is so per-
verted in his understanding as not to know that
these things exist indeed in combination, but if
separated and taken alone they tend to destroy
even one another according to the prevailing
power of the more abundant element ? For
heat is destroyed by cold if it be present in
greater quantity, and cold again is put away by
the power of heat, and what is dry, again, is
moistened by wet, and the latter dried by the
former.
§28. But neither can the cosinic organism be God.
For that would make God consist of dissimilar
parts, and subject Him to possible dissolution.
How then can these things be gods, seeing
that they need one another's assistance? Or
how is it proper to ask anything of them when
they too ask help for themselves one from
another ? For if it is an admitted truth about
God that He stands in need of nothing, but is
self-sufficient and self-contained, and that in
Him all things have their being, and that He
ministers to all rather than they to Him, how
AGAINST THE HEATHEN.
19
is it right to proclaim as gods the sun and
moon and other parts of creation, which are of
no such kind, but which even stand in need of
one another's help ? 2. But, perhaps, if divided
and takert by themselves, our opponents them-
selves will admit that they are dependent, the
demonstration being an ocular one. But they
will combine all together, as constituting a single
body, and will say that the whole is God. For
the whole once put together, they will no longer
need external help, but the whole will be suffi-
cient for itself and independent in all respects ;
so at least the would-be philosophers will tell
us, only to be refuted here once more. 3. Now
this argument, not one whit less than those pre-
viously dealt with, will demonstrate their im-
piety coupled with great ignorance. For if
the combination of the parts makes up the
whole, and the whole is combined out of the
parts, then the whole consists of the parts, and
each of them is a portion of the whole. But
this is very far removed from the conception of
God. For. God is a whole and not a number
of parts, and does not consist of diverse ele-
ments, but is Himself the Maker of the system
of the universe. For see what impiety they
utter against the Deity when they say this.
For if He consists of parts, certainly it will
follow that He is unlike Himself, and made up
of unlike parts. For if He is sun. He is not
moon, and if He is moon. He is not earth, and
if He is earth, He cannot be sea : and so on,
taking the parts one by one, one may discover
the absurdity of this theory of theirs. 4. But
the following point, drawn from the observation
of our human body, is enough to refute them.
For just as the eye is not the sense of hearing,
nor is the latter a hand : nor is the belly the
breast, nor again is the neck a foot, but each
of these has its own function, and a single
body is composed of these distinct parts, —
having its parts combined for use, but destined
to be divided in course of time when nature,
that brought them together, shall divide them
at the will of God, Who so ordered it;— thus
(but may He that is above pardon the argu-
ment^), if they combine the parts of creation
into one body and proclaim it God, it follows,
firstly, that He is unlike Himself, as shewn
above; secondly, that He is destined to be
divided again, in accordance with the natural
tendency of the parts to separation.
§ 29. The balance of powers in Nature shews that
it is not God, either collectively, or hi parts.
And in yet another way one may refute their
godlessness by the light of truth. For if God
is incorporeal and invisible and intangible by
nature, how do they imagine God to be a body.
6 Cf. Orat. i. 25, note a.
and worship with divine honour things which
we both see with our eyes and touch with our
hands ? 2. And again, if what is said of God
hold true, namely, that He is almighty, and
that while nothing has power over Him, He has
power and rule over all, how can they who
deify creation fail to see that it does not satisfy
this definition of God ? For when the sun is
under the eardi, the earth's shadow makes his
light invisible, while by day the sun hides the
moon by the brilliancy of his light. And hail
ofltimes injures the fruits of the earth, while fire
is put out if an overflow of water take place.
And spring makes winter give place, while
summer will not suff"er spring to outstay its
proper limits, and it in its turn is forbidden
by autumn to outstep its own season. 3. If
then they were gods, they ought not to be de-
feated and obscured by one another, but always
to co-exist, and to discharge their respective
functions simultaneously. Both by night and
by day the sun and the moon and the rest of
the* band of stars ought to shine equally
together, and give their light to all, so that all
things might be illumined by them. Spring
and summer and autumn and winter ought to
go on without alteration, and together. The
sea ought to mingle with the springs, and fur-
nish their drink to man in common. Calms
and windy blasts ought to take place at the
same time. Fire and water together ought to
furnish the same service to man. For no one
would take any hurt from them, if they are
gods, as our opponents say, and do nothing
for huft, but rather all things for good. 4. But
if none of these things are possible, because of
their mutual incompatibility, how does it remain
possible to give to these things, mutually incom-
patible and at strife, and unable to combine,
the name of gods, or to worship them with the
honours due to God ? How could things natur-
ally discordant give peace to others for their
prayers, and become to them authors of con-
cord? It is not then likely that the sun or the
moon, or any other part of creation, still less
statues in stone, gold, or other material, or the
Zeus, Apollo, and the rest, who are the subject
of the poet's fables, are true gods : this our ar-
gument has shewn. But some of these are parts
of creation, others have no life, others have
been mere mortal men. Therefore their wor-
ship and deification is no part of religion, but
the bringing in of godlessness and of all im-
piety, and a sign of a wide departure from the
knowledge of the one true God, namely the
Father of Christ. 5. Since then this is thus
proved, and the idolatry of the Greeks is shevvn
to be full of all ungodliness, and that its intro-
duction has been not for the good, but for the
ruin, of human life ; — come now, as our argu-
c 2
20
CONTRA GENTES
ment promised at the outset, let us, after having
confuted error, travel the way of truth, and
behold the Leader and Artificer of the Universe,
the Word of the Father, in order that through
Him we may apprehend the Father, and that
the Greeks may know how far they have separ-
ated themselves from the truth.
PART II.
§ 30. The soul of man, being intellectual, can
know God of itself if it be true to its own
nature.
The tenets we have been speaking of have
been proved to be nothing more than a false
guide for life ; but the way of truth will aim at
reaching the real and true God. But for its
knowledge and accurate comprehension, there
is need of none other save of ourselves. Neither,
as God Himself is above all, is the road to
Him afar off or outside ourselves, but it is in us,
and it is possible to find it from ourselves, in the
first instance, as Moses also taught, when he
said 7 : " The word " of faith " is within thy
heart." Which very thing the Saviour declared
and confirmed, when He said : " The kingdom
of God is within you ^." 2, For having in our-
selves faith, and the kingdom of God, we shall
be able quickly to see and perceive the King
of the Universe, the saving Word of the Father.
And let not the Greeks, who worship idols,
rnake excuses, nor let any one else simply de-
ceive himself, professing to have no such road,
and therefore finding a pretext for his g6dless-
ness. 3. For we all have set foot upon it, and
have it, even if not all are willing to travel by
it, but rather to swerve from it and go Avrong,
because of the pleasures of life which attract
them from without. And if one were to ask,
what road is this ? I say that it is the soul of
each one of us, and the intelligence which re-
sides there. For by it alone can God be con-
templated and perceived. 4. Unless, as they
have denied God, the impious men will re-
pudiate having a soul ; which indeed is more
plausible than the rest of what they say, for it
is unlike men possessed of an intellect to deny
God, its Maker and Artificer. It is necessary
then, for the sake of the simple, to shew briefly
that each one of mankind has a soul, and that
soul rational ; especially as certain of the sec-
taries deny this also, thinking that man is
nothing more than the visible form of the body.
This point once proved, they will be furnished
in their own persons with a clearer proof
against the idols.
7 Deut. XXX. 14.
• Luc. xvii. 12.
§31. Proof of the existence of the rational soul.
(i) Difference of man from the brutes. (2)
Man's power of objective thought. Thought is
to sense as the musician to his instrument.
The phe7iomena of dreams bear this out,
Firsdy, then, the rational nature of the soul
is strongly confirmed by its difference from ir-
rational creatures. For this is why common
use gives them that name, because, namely, the
race of mankind is rational. 2. Secondly, it is
no ordinary proof, that man alone thinks of
things external to himself, and reasons about
things not actually present, and exercises reflec-
tion, and chooses by judgment the better of al-
ternative reasonings. For the irrational animals
see only what is present, and are impelled solely
by what meets their eye, even if the conse-
quences to them are injurious, while man is not
impelled toward what he sees merely, but judges
by diought what he sees with his eyes. Often for
example his impulses are mastered by reason-
ing ; and his reasoning is subject to after-
reflection. And every one, if he be a friend
of truth, perceives that the intelligence of
mankind is distinct from the bodily senses.
3. Hence, because it is distinct, it acts as judge
of the senses, and while they apprehend their
objects, the intelligence distinguishes, recol-
lects, and shews them what is best. For the
sole function of the eye is to see, of the ears to
hear, of the mouth to taste, of the nostrils to
apprehend smells, and of the hands to touch.
But what one ought to see and hear, what one
ought to touch, taste and smell, is a question
beyond the senses, and belonging to the soul
and to the intelligence which resides in it.
Why, the hand is able to take hold of a sword-
blade, and the mouth to taste poison, but
neither knows that these are injurious, unless
the intellect decide. 4. And the case, to
look at it by aid of a simile, is like that of a
well-fashioned lyre in the hands of a skilled
musician. For as the strings of the lyre have
each its proper note, high, low, or intermediate,
sharp or otherwise, yet their scale is indistin-
guishable and their time not to be recognized,
without the artist. For then only is the scale
manifest and the time right, when he that is
holding the lyre strikes the strings and touches
each in tune. In like manner, the senses being
disposed in the body like a lyre, when the
skilled inteUigence presides over them, then
too the soul distinguishes and knows what it is
doing and how it is acting. 5. But this alone
is peculiar to mankind, and this is what is
rational in the soul of mankind, by means of
which it differs from the brutes, and shews that
it is truly distinct from what is to be seen in
the body. Often, for example, when the body
AGAINST THE HEATHEN.
21
is lying on the earth, man imagines and con-
templates what is in the heavens. Often when
the body is quiet 9, and at rest and asleep, man
moves inwardly, and beholds what is outside
himself, travelling to other countries, walking
about, meeting his acquaintances, and often by
these means divining and forecasting the ac-
tions of the day. But to what can this be due
save to the rational soul, in which man thinks
of and perceives things beyond himself ?
§ 32. (3) The body cannot originate such phe-
nomena; and in fact the action of the rational
S07cl is seen in its over-ruling the instincts of
the bodily organs.
We add a further point to complete our
demonstration for the benefit of those' who
shamelessly take refuge in denial of reason.
How^ is it, that whereas the body is mortal by
nature, man reasons on the things of immor-
tality, and often, where virtue demands it,
courts death? Or how, since the body lasts
but for a time, does man imagine of things
eternal, so as to despise what lies before him,
and desire what is beyond ? The body could
not have spontaneously such thoughts about
itself, nor could it think upon what is external
to itself. For it is mortal and lasts but for a
time. And it follows that that which thinks
what is opposed to the body and against its
nature must be distinct in kind. What then
can this be, save a rational and immortal soul?
For it introduces the echo of higher things, not
outside, but within the body, as the musician
does in his lyre, 2. Or how again, the eye
being naturally constituted to see and the ear
to hear, do they turn from some objects and
choose others ? For who is it that turns away
the eye from seeing? Or who shuts off the
ear from hearing, its natural function ? Or
who often hinders the palate, to which it is
natural to taste things, from its natural impulse ?
Or who withholds the hand from its natural ac-
tivity of touching something, or turns aside the
sense of smell from its normal exercise ^ ? Who
is it that thus acts against the natural instincts
■of the body ? Or how does the body, turned
from its natural course, turn to the counsels
of another and suffer itself to be guided at
the beck of that other ? Why, these things
prove simply this, that the rational soul pre-
sides over the body. 3. For the body is not
even constituted to drive itself, but it is carried
at the will of another, just as a horse does not
yoke himself, but is driven by his master.
Hence laws for human beings to practise what
is good and to abstain from evil-doing, while
9 Cf. Vit. Ant. 34. I Supia xxx.
2 Compare the somewhat analogous argument in Butler,
Strm. ii
to the brutes evil remains untliouglit of and
undiscerned, because they He outside rationality
and the process of understanding. I think then
that the existence of a rational soul in man is
proved by what we have said.
% 12)- The soul immortal. Proved hy {x) its
being distinct from the body, (2) its being the
source 0/ motion, (3) its power to go beyond
the body in imaginatioti and thought.
But that the soul is made immortal is a
further point in the Church's teaching which
you must know, to shew how the idols are to
be overthrown. But we shall more directly
arrive at a knowledge of this from what we
know of the body, and from the difference be-
tween the body and the soul. For if our argu-
ment has proved it to be distinct from the
body, while the body is by nature mortal, it
follows that the soul is immortal, because it is
not like the body. 2. And again, if as we
have shewn, the soul moves the body and is not
moved by other things, it follows that the move-
ment of the soul is spontaneous, and that this
spontaneous movement goes on after the body
is laid aside in the earth. If then the soul were
moved by the body, it would follow that the
severance of its motor would involve its death.
But if the soul moves the body also, it follows
all the more that it moves itself. But if moved
by itself 3, it follows that it outlives the body.
3. For the movement of the soul is the same
thing as its life, just as, of course, we call the
body alive when it moves, and say that its
death takes place when it ceases moving. But
this can be made clearer once for all from the
action of the soul in the body. For if even
when united and coupled with the body it is
not shut in or commensurate with the small
dimensions of the body, but often +, when the
body lies in bed, not moving, but in death-hke
sleep, the soul keeps awake by virtue of its own
power, and transcends the natural power of the
body, and as though travelling away from the
body while remaining in it, imagines and be-
holds things above the earth, and often even
holds converse with the saints and angels who
are above earthly and bodily existence, and ap-
proaches them in the confidence of the purity
of its intelligence ; shall it not all the more,
when separated from the body at the time ap-
pointed by God Who coupled them together,
have its knowledge of immortality more clear?
For if even when coupled with the body it
lived a life outside the body, much more shall
its life contiiiue after the death of the body,
3 Cf.Plato Phifdr. 245 C— E., Leg^. 896, A, B. The .o.mer
passage is more likely to be referred to here, as it is, like the text,
an argument for immortality. Athan. has also referred to Fftadrus
above, g 5. (Against Gwatkin, Siuaies, p. loi.
4 Cp. xxxi. 5, and rei.
22
CONTRA GENTES.
and live without ceasing by reason of God Who
made it thus by His own Word, our Lord Jesus
Christ. 4. For this is the reason why the soul
thinks of and bears in mind things immortal
and eternal, namely, because it is itself immortal.
And just as, the body being mortal, its senses
also have mortal things as their objects, so,
since the soul contemplates and beholds im-
mortal things, it follows that it is immortal and
lives for ever. For ideas and thoughts about
immortality never desert the soul, but abide in
it, and are as it were the fuel in it which ensures
its immortality. This then is why the soul has
the capacity for beholding God, and is its own
way thereto, receiving not from without but
from herself the knowledge and apprehension
of the Word of God.
§ 34. The soul, then, if only it get rid of the stains
of sin is able to know God directly, its own
rational nature i7naging back the Word of
God, after whose image it was created. But
even if it cannot pierce the cloud which sin
draws over its vision, it is confronted by the
witness of creation to God.
We repeat then what we said before, that
just as men denied God, and worship things
without soul, so also in thinking they have
not a rational soul, they receive at once
the punishment of their folly, namely, to
be reckoned among irrational creatures : and
so, since as though from lack of a soul of their
own they superstitiously worship soulless gods,
they are worthy of pity and guidance. 2. But
if they claim to have a soul, and pride them-
selves on the rational principle, and that rightly,
why do they, as though they had no soul, venture
to go against reason, and think not as theyought,
but make themselves out higher even than the
Deity ? For having a soul that is immortal and
invisible to them, they make a likeness of God
in things visible and mortal. Or why, in like
manner as they have departed from God, do
they not betake themselves to Him again ?
For they are able, as they turned away their
understanding from God, and feigned as gods
things that -were not, in like manner to ascend
with the intelligence of their soul, and turn
back to God again. 3. But turn back they
can, if they lay aside the filth of all lust which
they have put on, and wash it away persistently,
until they have got rid of all the foreign matter
that has affected their soul, and can shew it in
its simplicity as it was made, that so they may
be able by it to behold the Word of the Father,
after Whose likeness they were originally made.
For the soul is made after the image and like-
ness of God, as divine Scripture also shews,
when it says in the person of Gods : " Let us
5 Gen. i. 26.
make man after our Image and likeness."
Whence also when it gets rid of all the filth
of sin which covers it and retains only the
likeness of the Image in its purity, then surely
this latter being thoroughly brightened, the soul
beholds as in a mirror the Image of the Father,
even the Word, and by His means reaches the
idea of the Father, Whose Image the Saviour
is. 4. Or, if the soul's own teaching is insuffi-
cient, by reason of the external things which
cloud its intelligence, and prevent its seeing
what is higher, yet it is further possible to
attain to the knowledge of God from the things
which are seen, since Creation, as though in
written characters, declares in a loud voice, by
its order and harmony, its own Lord and
Creator.
PART III.
§35. Creation a revelation of God ; especially in
the order and harmony pervading the whole.
For God, being good and loving to mankind,
and caring for the souls made by Him, — since
He is by nature invisible and incomprehensible,
having His being beyond all created existence ^,
for which reason the race of mankind was likely
to miss the way to the knowledge of Him,
since they are made out of nothing while He
is unmade, — for this cause God by His own
Word gave the Universe the Order it has, in
order that since He is by nature invisible,
men might be enabled to know Him at any
rate by His works 7. For often the artist
even when not seen is known by his works.
2. And as they tell of Phidias the Sculptor
that his works of art by their symmetry and
by the proportion of their parts betray Phidias
to those who see them although he is not
there, so by the order of the Universe one
ought to perceive God its maker and artificer,
even though He be not seen with the bodily
eyes. For God did not take His stand upon
His invisible nature (let none plead that as
an excuse) and leave Himself utterly unknown
to men; but as I said above, He so ordered
Creation that although He is by nature in-
visible He may yet be known by His works.
3. And I say this not on my own authority,
but on the strength of what I learned from
men who have spoken of God, among them
Paul, who thus writes to the Romans ^ : " for
the invisible things of Him since the creation
of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made;" while to the
Lycaonians he speaks out and says 9 : " We
also are men of like passions with you, and
bring you good tidings, to turn from these
' Cf. below, 40. 2.
* Rom. i. 20.
7 Cf. Oral. ii. 38.
9 AcLs xiv. 15.
AGAINST THE HEATHEN.
23
vain things unto a Living God, Who made
the heaven and the earth and the sea, and
all that in them is. Who in the generations
gone by suffered all nations to walk in their
own ways. And yet He left not Himself
without witness, in that He did good, and
gave you ' from heaven rains and fruitful
seasons, filling y.our hearts with food and
gladness." 4. For who that sees the circle
of heaven and the course of the sun and the
moon, and the positions and movements of the
other stars, as they take place in opposite and
different directions, while yet in their differ-
ence all with one accord observe a consistent
order, can resist the conclusion that these are
not ordered by themselves, but have a maker
distinct from themselves who orders them ? or
who that sees the sun rising by day and the
moon shining by night, and waning and wax-
ing without variation exactly according to the
same number of days, and some of the stars
running their courses and with orbits various
and manifold, while others move ^ without
wandering, can fail to perceive that they cer-
tainly have a creator to guide them ?
§ 36. This the more striking, if we consider the
opposing forces out of which this order is pro-
duced.
Who that sees things of opposite nature com-
bined, and in concordant harmony, as for ex-
ample fire mingled with cold, and dry with wet,
and that not in mutual conflict, but making up
a single body, as it were homogeneous, can
resist the inference that there is One external
to these things that has united them ? Who
that sees winter giving place to spring and
spring to summer and summer to autumn, and
that these things contrary by nature (for
the one chills, the other burns, the one nour-
ishes the other destroys), yet all make up a
balanced result beneficial to mankind, — can
fail to perceive that there is One higher than
they. Who balances and guides them all, even
if he see Him not ? 2. Who that sees the
clouds supported in air, and the weight of
the waters bound up in the clouds, can but
perceive Him that binds them up and has
ordered these things so ? Or who that sees
the earth, heaviest of all things by nature,
fixed upon the waters, and remaining unmoved
upon what is by nature mobile, will fail to
understand that there is One that has made
and ordered it, even God ? Who that sees
the earth bringing tbrth fruits in due season,
and the rains from heaven, and the flow of
I vfiXv and imuiv below are read by several MSS., and are
probably correct as in the original passage.
* The ' lixed ' stars as distinct from the planets. For the argu-
ment, cf. Plato, Legg. 966 E.
rivers, and springing up of wells, and the
birth of animals from unlike parents, and that
these things take place not at all times but at
determinate seasons, — and in general, among
things mutually unlike and contrary, the
balanced and uniform order to which they
conform, — can resist the inference that there
is one Power which orders and administers
them, ordaining things well as it thinks fit ?
4. For left to themselves they could not
subsist or ever be able to appear, on account
of their mutual contrariety of nature. For
water is by nature heavy, and tends to flow
downwards, while the clouds are light and
belong to the class of things which tend to
soar and mount upwards. And yet we see
water, heavy as it is, borne aloft in the clouds.
And again, earth is very heavy, while water
on the other hand is relatively light ; and yet
the heavier is supported upon the lighter, and
the earth does not sink, but remains immove-
able. And male and female are not the same,
while yet they unite in one, and the result is
the generation from both of an animal like
them. And to cut the matter short, cold is
opposite to heat, and wet fights with dry, and
yet they come together and are not at variance,
but they agree, and produce as their result a
single body, and the birth of everything.
§ 37. The satne subject continued.
Things then of conflicting and opposite
nature would not have reconciled themselves,
were there not One higher and Lord over
them to unite them, to Whom the elements
themselves yield obedience as slaves that obey
a master. And instead of each having regard
to its own nature and fighting with its neigh-
bour, they recognise the Lord Who has united
them, and are at concord one with another,
being by nature opposed, but at amity by the
will of Him that guides them. 2. For if their
mingling into one were not due to a higher au-
thority, how could the heavy mingle and combine
with the light, the wet with the dry, the round
with the straight, fire with cold, or sea with earth,
or the sun with the moon, or the stars with
the heaven, and the air with the clouds, the
nature of each being dissimilar to that of the
other? For there would be great strife among
them, the one burning, the other giving cold ;
the heavy dragging downwards, the light in the
contrary direction and upwards ; the sun giving
light while the air diffused darkness : yes, even
the stars would have been at discord with one
another, since some have their position above,
others beneath, and night would have refused
to make way for day, but would havepersisted in
remaining to fight and strive against it. 3. But
if this were so, we should consequently see not
24
CONTRA GENTES.
an ordered universe, but disorder, not arrange-
ment but anarchy, not a system, but every-
thing out of system, not proportion but dispro-
portion. For in the general strife and conflict
either all things would be destroyed, or the
prevailing principle alone would appear. And
even the latter would shew the disorder of the
whole, for left alone, and deprived of the help
of the others, it would throw the whole out of
gear, just as, if a single hand and foot were left
alone, that would not preserve the body in its
integrity. 4. For what sort of an universe
would it be, if only the sun appeared, or only
the moon went her course, or there were only
night, or always day? Or what sort of har-
mony would it be, again, if the heaven existed
alone without the stars, or the stars without
the heaven ? Or what benefit would there be,
if there were only sea, or if the earth were there
alone without waters and without the other parts
of creation ? Or how could man, or any animal,
have appeared upon earth, if the elements were
mutually at strife, or if there were one that
prevailed, and that one insufficient for the com-
position of bodies. For nothing in the world
could have been composed of heat, or cold, or
wet, or dry, alone, but all would have been
without arrangement or combination. But not
even the one element which appeared to pre-
vail would have been able to subsist without
the assistance of the rest : for that is how each
subsists now.
§ 38. The Unity of God shewn by the Harmony
of the order of Nature.
Since then, there is everywhere not disorder,
but order, proportion and not disproportion,
not disarray but arrangement, and that in an
order perfectly harmonious, we needs must
infer and be led to perceive the Master that
put together and compacted all things, and
produced harmony in them. For though He
be not seen with the eyes, yet from the order
and harmony of things contrary it is possible
to perceive their Ruler, Arranger, and King.
2. For in like manner as if we saw a city, con-
sisting of many and diverse people, great and
small, rich and poor, old and young, male and
female, in an orderly condition, and its inhabit-
ants, while different from one another, yet at
unity among themselves, and not the rich set
against the poor, the great against the small,
nor the young against the old, but all at peace
in the enjoyment of equal rights, — if we saw
this, the inference surely follows that the
presence of a ruler enforces concord, even if
we do not see him ; (for disorder is a sign of
absence of rule, while order shews the govern-
ing authority : for when we see the mutual har-
mony of the members in the body, that the
eye does not strive with the hearing, nor is the
hand at variance with the foot, but that each
accomplishes its service without variance, we
perceive from this that certainly there is a soul
in the body that governs these members,
though we see it not) ; so in the order and
harmony of the Universe, we needs must per-
ceive God the governor of it all, and that He
is one and not many. 3. So then this order of
its arrangement, and the concordant harmony
of all things, shews that the Word, its Ruler and
Governor, is not many, but One. For if there
were more than one Ruler of Creation, such an
universal order would not be maintained, but
all things would fall into confusion because of
their plurality, each one biasing the whole to
his own will, and striving with the other. For
just as we said that polytheism was atheism, so
it follows that the rule of more than one is the
rule of none. For each one would cancel the
rule of the other, and none would appear ruler,
but there would be anarchy everywhere. But
where no ruler is, there disorder follows of
course. 4. And conversely, the single order
and concord of the many and diverse shews
that the ruler too is one. For just as though
one were to hear from a distance a lyre, com-
posed of many diverse strings, and marvel at
the concord of its symphony, in that its
sound is composed neither of low notes ex-
clusively, nor high nor intermediate only, but
all combine their sounds in equal balance, —
and would not fail to perceive from this that
the lyre was not playing itself, nor even being
struck by more persons than one, but that
there was one musician, even if he did not see
him, who by his skill combined the sound of
each string into the tuneful symphony j so, the
order of the whole universe being perfectly
harmonious, and there being no strife of the
higher against the lower or the lower against
the higher, and all things making up one order,
it is consistent to think that the Ruler and King
of all Creation is one and not many. Who by
His own light illumines and gives movement
to all.
§ 39. Impossibility of a plurality of Gods,
For we must not think there is more than
one ruler and maker of Creation : but it belongs
to correct and true religion to believe that its
Artificer is one, while Creation herself clearly
points to this. For the fact that there is one
Universe only and not more is a conclusive
proof that its Maker is one. For if there were
a plurality of gods, there would necessarily be
also more universes than one. For neither
were it reasonable for more than one God to
make a single universe, nor for the one uni-
verse to be made by more than one, because of
AGAINST THE HEATHEN.
25
the absurdities which would result from this.
2. Firstly, if the one universe were made by a
plurality of gods, that would mean weakness
on the part of those who made it, because many
contributed to a single result ; which would be
a strong proof of the imperfect creative skill
of each. For if one were sufficient, the many
would not supplement each other's deficiency.
But to say that there is any deficiency in God
is not only impious, but even beyond all sacri-
lege. For even among men one would not call
a workman perfect if he were unable to finish
his work, a single piece, by himself and without
the aid of several others. 3. But if, although
each one was able to accomplish the whole, yet
all worked at it in order to claim a share in the
result, we have the laughable conclusion that
each worked for reputation, lest he should be
suspected of inability. But, once more, it is
most grotesque to ascribe vainglory to gods^
4. Again, if each one were suflficient for the crea-
tion of the whole, what need of more than one,
one being self-sufficient for the universe ? More-
over it would be evidently impious and gro-
tesque, to make the thing created one, while
the creators were many and different, it being
a maxim of science 3 that what is one and com-
plete is higher than things that are diverse.
5. And this you must know, that if the universe
had been made by a plurality of gods, its
movements would be diverse and inconsistent.
For having regard to each one of its makers, its
movements would be correspondingly difterenL
But such difference again, as was said before,
would involve disarray and general disorder;
for not even a ship will sail aright if she be
steered by many, unless one pilot hold the
tiller +, nor will a lyre struck by many produce
a tuneful sound, unless there be one artist who
strikes it. 6. Creation, then, being one, and
the Universe one, and its order one, we must
perceive that its King and Artificer also is one.
For this is why the Artificer Himself made the
whole universe one, lest by the coexistence of
more than one a plurality of makers should be
supposed ; but that as the work is one, its
Maker also may be believed to be One. Nor
does it follow from the unity of the Maker that
the Universe must be one, for God might have
made others as well. But because the Universe
that has been made is one, it is necessary to
believe that its Maker also is one.
§ 40. The rationality and order of the Universe
proves that it is the work of the Reason or
Word of God.
Who then might this Maker be ? for this is
3 Or, perhaps, ''innate, self-evident maxim" (Aoyo? <f>wtrii<-o?)
•4 lit. •' the steering-paddles."
a point most necessary to make plain, lest,
from ignorance with regard to him, a man should
suppose the wrong maker, and fall once more
into the same old godless error, but I think no
one is really in doubt about it. For if our
argument has proved that the gods of the poets
are no gods, and has convicted of error those
that deify creation, and in general has shewn
that the idolatry of the heathen is godlessness
and impiety, it strictly follows from the elimin-
ation of these that the true religion is with us,
and that tlie God we worship and preach is the
only true One, Who is Lord of Creation and
Maker of all existence. 2. Who then is this,
save the Father of Christ, most holy and above
all created existence s, Who like an excellent
pilot, by His own Wisdom and His own Word,
our Lord and Saviour Christ, steers and pre-
serves and orders all things, and does as seems
to Him best ? But that is best which has been
done, and which we see taking place, since that
is what He wills ; and this a man can hardly
refuse to believe. 3. For if the movement of
creation were irrational, and the universe were
borne along without plan, a man might fairly
disbelieve what we say. But if it subsist in
reason and wisdom and skill, and is perfectly
ordered throughout, it follows that He that is
over it and has ordered it is none other than
the [reason or] Word of God. 4. But by Word
I mean, not that which is involved and inherent
in all things created, which some are wont to
call the seminal^ principle, which is without
soul and has no power of reason or thought,
but only works by external art, according to
the skill of him that applies it, — nor such a
word as belongs to rational beings and which
consists of syllables, and has the air as its
vehicle of expression, — but I mean the living
and powerful Word of the good God, the God
of the Universe, the very Word which is God 7,
Who while different from things that are made,
and from all Creation, is the One own Word of
the good Father, Who by His own providence
ordered and illumines this Universe. 5. For
being the good Word of the Good Father He
produced the order of all things, combining
one with another things contrary, and reducing
them to one harmonious order. He being the
Power of God and Wisdom of God causes the
heaven to revolve, and has suspended the earth,
and made it fast, though resting upon nothing,
by His own nod ^. Illumined by Him, the sun
gives light to the world, and the moon has her
measured period of shining. By reason of
Him the water is suspended in the clouds, the
rains shower upon the earth, and the sea is
S Cf. above i. a and note, also 35. i
6 oTrep/iiaTiKos.
7 Joh. i. I.
8 i/evjota, i.e. act of will, or fiat
26
CONTRA GENTES.
kept within bounds, while the earth bears
grasses and is clothed with all manner ot
plants. 6. And if a man were incredulously to
ask, as regards what we are saying, if there be
a Word of God at all 9, such an one would
indeed be mad to doubt concerning the Word
of God, but yet demonstration is possible from
what is seen, because all things subsist by the
Word and Wisdom of God, nor would any
created thing have had a fixed existence had it
not been made by reason, and that reason the
Word of God, as we have said.
§ 41. The Presence of the Word in nature ne-
cessary, not only for its original Creation, but
also for its permanence.
But though He is Word, He is not, as we
said, after the likeness of human words, com-
posed of syllables ; but He is the unchanging
Image of His own Father. For men, composed
of parts and made out of nothing, have their
discourse composite and divisible. But God
possesses true existence and is not composite,
wherefore His Word also has true Existence
and is not composite, but is the one and only-
begotten God % Who proceeds in His goodness
from the Father as from a good Fountain, and
orders all things and holds them together.
2. But the reason why the Word, the Word of
God, has united Himself^ with created things is
truly wonderful, and teaches us that the present
order of things is none otherwise than is fitting.
For the nature of created things, inasmuch as
it is brought into being out of nothing, is of
a fleeting sort, and weak and mortal, if com-
posed of itself only. But the God of all is
good and exceeding noble by nature, — and
therefore is kind. For one that is good can
grudge nothings : for w-hich reason he does not
grudge even existence, but desires all to exist,
as objects for His loving-kindness. 3. Seeing
then all created nature, as far as its own laws
were concerned, to be fleeting and subject to
dissolution, lest it should come to this and
lest the Universe should be broken up again
into nothingness, for this cause He made all
things by His own eternal Word, and gave sub-
stantive existence to Creation, and moreover
did not leave it to be tossed in a tempest in
the course of its own nature, lest it should run
the risk of once more dropping out of exist-
ence 4 ; but, because He is good He guides and
settles the whole Creation by His own Word,
Who is Himself also God, that by the govern-
9 De Incam. 41. 3. » Joh. i. 18, R. V, Marg.
2 ini^e^riKev, see for the sense Iftcarn. 43. 4, &c.
3 Plato Thnaeus 2<) E, qi:oLed also de Incam. 3. 3. This ex-
planation of Divine Creation is also adopted by Philo de Migra-
tione Abrah. 32 (and see Drummond's Pliilo, vol. 2, pp. 56, .sqq.).
4 Plato Politic, (see de Imarn. 43. 7, note).
ance and providence and ordering action of the
Word, Creation may have light, and be enabled
to abide alway securely. For it partakes of
the Word Who derives true existence from the
Father, and is helped by Him so as to exist,
lest that should come to it which would have
come but for the maintenance of it by the
Word, — namely, dissolution, — " for He is the
Image of the invisible God, the first-born
of all Creation, for through Him and in Him
all things consist, things visible and things
invisible, and He is the Head of the Church,"
as the ministers of truth teach in their holy
writings s.
§ 42. This function of the Word described
at length.
The holy Word of the Father, then, almighty
and all-perfect, uniting with the universe and
having everywhere unfolded His own powers,
and having illumined all, both things seen and
things invisible, holds them together and binds
them to Himself, having left nothing void of
His own power, but on the contrary quick-
ening and sustaining all things everywhere,
each severally and all collectively ; while He
mingles in one the principles of all sensible ex-
istence, heat namely and cold and wet and dry,
and causes them not to conflict, but to make
up one concordant harmony. 2. By reason of
Him and His power, fire does not fight with
cold nor wet with dry, but principles mu-
tually opposed, as if friendly and brotherly
combine together, and give life to the things
we see, and form the principles by which
bodies exist. Obeying Him, even God the
Word, things on earth have life and things in
the heaven have their order. By reason of
Him all the sea, and the great ocean, move
within their proper bounds, while, as we said
above, the dry land grows grasses and is
clothed with all manner of diverse plants. And,
not to spend time in the enumeration of par-
ticulars, where the truth is obvious, there is
nothing that is and takes place but has been
made and stands by Him and through Him,
as also the Divine^ says, "In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God ; all things were made
by Him, and without Him was not any-
thing made." 3. For just as though some
musician, having tuned a lyre, and by his art
adjusted the high notes to the low, and the in-
termediate notes to the rest, were to produce
a single tune as the result, so also the Wis-
dom of God, handling the Universe as a lyre,
and adjusting things in the air to things on the
S Col. i. IS— 18.
Joh.
AGAINST THE HEATHEN.
27
earth, and things in the heaven to things in the
air, and combining parts into wholes and
moving them all by His beck and will, pro-
duces well and fittingly, as the result, the unity
of the universe and of its order. Himself
remaining unmoved with the Father while He
moves all things by His organising action, as
seems good for each to His own Father. 4.
For what is surprising in His godhead is this,
that by one and the same act of will He moves
all things simultaneously, and not at intervals,
but all collectively, both straight and curved,
things above and beneath and intermediate,
wet, cold, warm, seen and invisible, and orders
them according to their several nature. For
simultaneously at His single nod what is straight
moves as straight, what is curved also, and
what is intermediate, follows its own move-
ment; what is warm receives warmth, what
is dry dryness, and all things according to
their several nature are quickened and organ-
ised by Him, and He produces as the result a
marvellous and truly divine harmony.
§ 43. Three similes to illustrate the Word's
relation to the Ufiiverse^
And for so great a matter to be understood
by an example, let what we are describing be
compared to a great chorus. As then the
chorus is composed of different people, children,
women again, and old men, and those who are
still young, and, when one, namely the con-
ductor, gives the sign, each utters sound ac-
cording to his nature and power, the man as
a man, the child as a child, the old man as an
old man, and the young man as a young man,
while all make up a single harmony ; 2. or as
our soul at one time moves our several senses
according to the proper function of each, so
that when some one object is present all alike
are put in motion, and the eye sees, the ear
hears, the hand touches, the smell takes in
odour, and the palate tastes, — and often the
other parts of the body act too, as for instance
if the feet walk ; 3. or, to make our meaning
plain by yet a third example, it is as though a
very great city were built, and administered
under the presence of the ruler and king who
has built it ; for when he is present and gives
orders,and has his eye upon everything, all obey;
some busy themselves with agriculture, others
hasten for water to the aqueducts, another
goes forth to procure provisions, — one goes to
senate, another enters the assembly, the judge
goes to the bench, and the magistrate to his
court. The workman likewise settles to his
craft, the sailor goes down to the sea, the car-
penter to his workshop, the physician to his
tTfatment, the architect to his building ; and
while one is going to the country, anotlier
is returning from the country, and while some
walk about the town others are going out of
the town and returning to it again : but all this
is going on and is organised by the presence
of the one Ruler, and by his management :
4. in like manner then we must conceive of
the whole of Creation, even though the example
be inadequate, yet with an enlarged idea. For
witli the single impulse of a nod as it were of
the Word of God, all things simultaneously fall
into order, and each discharge their proper
functions, and a single order is made up by
them all together.
§ 44. The similes applied to the whole Universe,
seen and utiseen.
For by a nod and by the power of the
Divine Word of the Father that governs and
presides over all, the heaven revolves, the stars
move, the sun shines, the moon goes her cir-
cuit, and the air receives the sun's light and
the aether his heat, and the winds blow : the
mountains are reared on high, the sea is rough
with waves, and the living things in it grow,
the earth abides fixed, and bears fruit, and man
is formed and lives and dies again, and all
things whatever have their life and movement ;
fire burns, water cools, fountains spring forth,
rivers flow, seasons and hours come round,
rains descend, clouds are filled, hail is formed,
snow and ice congeal, birds fly, creeping things
go along, water-animals swim, the sea is navi-
gated, the earth is sown and grows crops in
due season, plants grow, and some are young, ■
some ripening, others in their growth become
old and decay, and while some things are
vanishing others are being engendered and
are coming to. light. 2. But all these things,
and more, which for their number we cannot
mention, the worker of wonders and marvels,
the Word of God, giving light and life, moves
and orders by His own nod, making the uni-
verse one. Nor does He leave out of Himself
even the invisible powers ; for including these
also in the universe inasmuch as he is their
maker also. He holds them together and
quickens them by His nod and by His provi-
dence. And there can be no excuse for dis-
believing this. 3. For as by His own provi-
dence bodies grow and the rational soul moves,
and possesses life and thought, and this requires
little proof, for we see what takes place, — so
again the same Word of God with one simple
nod by His own power moves and holds to-
gether both the visible universe and the invis-
ible powers, allotting to each its proper func-
tion, so that the divine powers move in a di-
viner way, while visible things move as they are
28
CONTRA GENTES.
seen to do. But Himself being over all, both
Governor and King and organising power, He
does all for the glory and knowledge of His own
Father, so that almost by the very works that
He brings to pass He teaches us and says,
" By the greatness and beauty of the creatures
proportionably the maker of them is seen 7."
§ 45. Conclusion. Doctrine of Scripture on
the subject of Part i.
For just as by looking up to the heaven
ar.i seeing its order and the light of the stars,
it is possible to infer the Word Who ordered
these things, so by beholding the Word of God,
one needs must behold also God His Father,
proceeding from Whom He is rightly called His
Father's Interpreter and Messenger. 2. And
this one may see from our own experience ;
for if when a word proceeds from men ^ we
infer that the mind is its source, and, by think-
ing about the word, see with our reason the
mind which it reveals, by far greater evidence
and incomparably more, seeing the power of
the Word, we receive a knowledge also of His
good Father, as the Saviour Himself says, " He
that hath seen Me hath seen the Father 9."
But this all inspired Scripture also teaches
more plainly and with more authority, so that
we in our turn write boldy to you as we do,
and you, if you refer to them, will be able to
verify what we say- 3. For an argument when
confirmed by higher authority is irresistibly
proved. From the first then the divine Word
firmly taught the Jewish people about the
abolition of idols when it said ' : '' Thou shalt
not make to thyself a graven image, nor the
likeness of anything that is in the heaven
above or in the earth beneath." But the
cause of their abolition another writer declares^,
saying : " The idols of the heathen are silver
and gold, the works of men's hands : a mouth
have they and will not speak, eyes have they
and will not see, ears have they and will not
hear, noses have they and will not smell,
hands have they and will not handle, feet
have they and will not walk." Nor has it
passed over in silence the doctrine of creation ;
but, knowing well its beauty, lest any attending
solely to this beauty should worship things as
if they were gods, instead of God's works, it
teaches men firmly beforehand when it says 3 :
" And do not when thou lookest up with thine
eyes and seest the sun and moon and all the
host of heaven, go astray and worship them,
which the Lord thy God hath given to all
nations under heaven." But He gave them,
not to be their gods, but that by their agency
Wisd. xiii. 5. 8 Cf. ^g Sent. Dionys. 23. 9 Joh. xiv. g.
» Ex. XX. 4. 2 Ps.cxv. 4 — 7. 3 Deut. iv. 19.
the Gentiles should know, as we have said,
God the Maker of them all. 4. For the people
of the Jews of old had abundant teaching, in
that they had the knowledge of God not only
from the works of Creation, but also from the
divine Scriptures. And in general to draw
men away from the error and irrational imagin-
ation of idols. He saith 4 : " Thou shalt have
none other gods but Me." Not as if there
were other gods does He forbid them to have
them, but lest any, turning from the true God,
should begin to make himself gods of what
were not, such as those who in the poets and
writers are called gods, though they are none.
And the language itself shews that they are no
Gods, when it savs, "Thou shalt have none
other gods," which refers only to the future.
But what is referred to the future does not
exist at the time of speaking.
§ 46. Doctrine of Scripture on the subject
of Part 3.
Has then the divine teaching, which abol-
ished the godlessness of the heathen or the
idols, passed over in silence, and left the race
of mankind to go entirely unprovided with the
knowledge of God ? Not so : rather it antici-
pates their understanding when it says s :
" Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one
God ; " and again, " Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all
thy strength ; " and again, " Thou shalt wor-
siiip the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt
thou serve, and shalt cleave to Him." 2. But
that the providence and ordering power of the
Word also, over all and toward all, is attested
by all inspired Scripture, this passage suffices
to confirm our argument, where men who speak
of God say ^ : "Thou hast laid the foundation
of the earth and it abideth. The day con-
tinueth according to Thine ordinance." And
again ^ : " Sing to our God upon the harp, that
covereth the heaven with clouds, that pre-
pareth rain for the earth, that bringeth forth
grass upon the mountains, and green herb for
the service of man, and giveth food to the
cattle." 3. But by whom does He give it,
save by Him through Whom all things were
made ? For the providence over all things
belongs naturally to Him by Whom they were
made ; and who is this save the Word of God,
concerning Whom in another psalm ^ he says :
" By the Word of the Lord were the heavens
made, and all the host of them by the Breath
of His mouth." For He tells us that all
things were made in Him and through Him.
4. Wherefore He also persuades us and says 9,
4 Ex. XX. 3.
7 Ps. cxlvii. 7 — 9.
5 Deut. vi. 4, 5, 13.
Ps. xxxiii. 6.
fi Ps. cxix. 90.
9 Ps. cxiviii. 3,
AGAINST THE HEATHEN.
29
He spake and they were made, He com-
manded and they were created ; " as the illus-
trious Moses also at the beginning of his ac-
count of Creation confirms what we say by his
narrative', saying : and God said, "let us make
man in our image and after our likeness : "
for also when He was carrying out the creation
of the heaven and earth and all things, the
Father said to Him % "Let the heaven be made,"
and " let the waters be gathered together and
let the dry land appear," and " let the earth
bring forth herb " and " every green thing : "
so that one must convict Jews also of not
genuinely attending to the Scriptures. 5. For
one might ask them to whom was God speak-
ing, to use the imperative mood ? If He were
commanding and addressing the things He was
creating, the utterance would be redundant, for
they were not yet in being, but were about to
be made ; but no one speaks to what does not
exist, nor addresses to what is not yet made
a command to be made. For if God were
giving a command to the things that were to
be, He must have said, " Be made, heaven, and
be made, earth, and come forth, green herb,
and be created, O man." But in fact He did
not do so ; but He gives the command thus :
Let us make man," and " let the green herb
come forth." By which God is proved to be
speaking about them to some one at hand :
it follows then that some one was with Him to
Whom He spoke when He made all things.
6. Who then could it be, save His Word ? For
to whom could God be said to speak, except
His Word ? Or who was with Him when He
made all created Existence, except His W^is-
dom, which says 3 : " When He was making
the heaven and the earth I was present with
Him?" But in the mention of heaven and
earth, all created things in heaven and earth
are included as well. 7. But being present with
Him as His Wisdom and His Word, looking
at the Father He fashioned the Universe, and
organised it and gave it order ; and, as He is
the power of the Father, He gave all things
strength to be, as the Saviour says 4 : " What
things soever I see the Father doing, I also
do in hke manner." And His holy disciples
teach that all things were made " through Him
and unto Him ; " 8. and, being the good
Offspring of Him that is good, and true Son,
He is the Father's Power and Wisdom and
Word, not being so by participation s, nor as if
these qualities were imparted to Him from
without, as they are to those who partake of
» Gen. i. 20. ' Gen. i. 6 — 11.
3 Prov. viii. 27. 4 Joh. v. 19; Col. i. x6.
5 ixeTOxv, cf. de Syn. 48, 51, 53. This was held by Arians,
but in common wilh Paul Samos. and many of the Monarchian
heretics. The same principle in Orig. on Ps. 135 (Lomm. xiii. 134)
ov /cara /xeTOUfftai' ctAAd kojt ovalo.v Weos.
Him and are made wise by Him, and receive
power and reason in Him ; but He is the very
Wisdom, very Word, and very own Power of
the Father, very Light, very Truth, very Right-
eousness, very Virtue, and in truth His express
Image, and Brightness, and Resemblance. And
to sum all up. He is the wholly perfect Fruit of
the Father, and is alone the Son, and un-
changing Image of the Father.
§ 47. Necessity of a return to the Word if ov.r
corrupt nature is to be restored.
Who then, who can declare the Father by
number, so as to discover the powers of His
Word ? For like as He is the Father's Word
and Wisdom, so too condescending to created
things. He becomes, to impart the knowledge
and apprehension of Him that begat Him, His
very Brightness and very Life, and the Door,
and the Shepherd, and the Way, and King and
Governor, and Saviour over all, and Light, and
Giver of Life, and Providence over all. Hav-
ing then such a Son begotten of Himself, good,
and Creator, the Father did not hide Him out
of the sight of His creatures, but even day by
day reveals Him to all by means of the or-
ganisation and life of all things, which is His
work. 2. But in and through Him He reveals
Himself also, as the Saviour says ^ : " I in the
Father and the Father in Me : " so that it
follows that the Word is in Him that begat
Him, and that He that is begotten lives eter-
nally with the Father. But this being so, and
nothing being outside Him, but both heaven
and earth and all that in them is being depen-
dent on Him, yet men in their folly have set
aside the knowledge and service of Him, and
honoured things that are not instead of things
that are : and instead of the real and true God
deified things that were not, " serving the crea-
ture rather than the Creator ?," thus involving
themselves in foolishness and impiety. 3. For
it is just as if one were to admire the works
more than the workman, and being awestruck
at the public works in the city, were to make
light of their builder, or as if one were to
praise a musical instrument but to despise the
man who made and tuned it. Foolish and sadly
disabled in eyesight ! For how else had they
known the building, or ship, or lyre, had not
the ship-builder made it, the architect built it,
or the musician fashioned it ? 4. As then he
that reasons in such a way is mad, and beyond
all madness, even so affected in mind, I think,
are those who do not recognise God or worship
His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ the Saviour
of all, through Whom the Father orders, and
* Joh. xiv. 10.
7 Rom. i. 25.
30
CONTRA GENTES.
holds together all things, and exercises provi-
dence over the Universe; having faith and
piety towards Whom, my Christ-loving friend,
be of good cheer and of good hope, because
immortality and the kingdom of heaven is the
fruit of faith and devotion towards Him, if only
the soul be adorned according to His laws.
For just as for them who walk after His
example, the prize is life everlasting, so for
those who walk the opposite way, and not that
of virtue, there is great shame, and peril with-
out pardon in the day of judgment, because
although they knew the way of truth their acts
were contrary to their knowledge.
INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISE
ON THE
INCARNATION OF THE WORD.
The tract 'against the Gentiles* leaves the reader face to face with the necessity of
restoration by the Divine Word as the remedy for corrupt human nature. How this necessity
is met in the Incarnation is shewn in the pages which follow. The general design of the
second tract is to illustrate and confirm the doctrine of the Incarnation by shewing (i) its
necessity and end, (2) the congruity of its details, (3) its truth, as against the objections
of Jews and Gentiles, (4) its result. He begins by a review (recapitulating c. Gent. 2 — 7)
of the doctrine of creation and of man's place therein. The abuse by man of his special
Privilege had resulted in its loss. By foregoing the Divine Life, man had entered upon
a course of endless undoing, of progressive decay, from which none could rescue him but
the original bestower of his life (2 — 7). Then follows a description in glowing words of the
Incarnation of the Divine Word and of its efficacy against the plague of corruption (8 — 10).
With the Divine Life, man had also received, in the knowledge of God, the conscious reflex
of the Divine Likeness, the faculty of reason in its highest exercise. This knowledge their
moral fall dimmed and perverted. Heeding not even the means by which God sought to
remind them of Himself, they fell deeper and deeper into materialism and superstition. To
restore the effaced likeness the presence of the Original was requisite. Accordingly, con-
descending to man's sense-bound intelligence — lest men should have been created in vain
in the Image of God — the Word took Flesh and became an object of Sense, that through
the Seen He might reveal the Invisible (11— 16).
Having dwelt (17 — 19) upon the meaning and purpose of the Incarnation, he proceeds
to speak of the Death and Resurrection of the Incarnate Word. He, Who alone could renew
the handiwork and restore the likeness and give afresh the knowledge of God, must needs,
in order to pay the debt which all had incurred (to napa navrav 6(f)ei.X6fievov), die in our stead,
offering the sacrifice on behalf of all, so as to rise again, as our first-fruits, from the grave
(20 — 32, note especially § 20). After speaking of the especial fitness of the Cross, once
the instrument of shame, now the trophy of victory, and after meeting some difficulties con-
nected with the manner of the Lord's Death, he passes to the Resurrection. He shews how
Christ by His triumph over the grave changed (27) the relative ascendancy of Death and
Life : and how the Resurrection with its momentous train of consequences, follows of ne-
cessity (31) from the Incarnation of Him in Whom was Life.
The two main divisions of contemporary unbelief are next combated. In either case
the root of the difficulty is moral ; with the Greeks it is a frivolous cynicism, with the Jews,
inveterate obstinacy. The latter (33 — 40) are confuted, firstly, by their own Scriptures,
which predict both in general and in detail the coming of Jesus Christ. Also, the old Jewish
polity, both civil and religious, has passed away, giving place to the Church of Christ.
Turning to the Greeks (41—45), and assuming that they allow the existence of a per-
32 INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISE ON THE
vading Spirit, whose presence is the sustaining principle of all things, he challenges them
to reject, without inconsistency, the Union of that Spirit, the Logos (compare St. Augustine
Conf. VII. ix.), with one in particular of the many constituents of that Universe wherein he
already dwells. And since man alone (43. 3) of the creatures had departed from the order
of his creation, it was man's nature that the Word united to Himself, thus repairing the breach
between the creature and the Creator at the very point where it had occurred.
God did not restore man by a mere fiat (44) because, just as repentance on man's
part (7) could not eradicate his disease, so such a fiat on God's part would have amounted
to the annihilation of human nature as it was, and the creation of a fresh race. Man's definite
disorder God met with a specific remedj', overcoming death with life. Thus man has been
enabled once more to shew forth, in common with the rest of Creation, the handiwork and
glory of his Maker.
Athanasius then confronts the Greeks, as he had the Jews, with facts. Since the coming
of Christ, paganism, popular and philosophic, had been falling into discredit and decay. The
impotence and rivalries of the philosophic teachers, the local and heterogeneous character,
the low moral ideals of the old worships, are contrasted with the oneness and inspiring power
of the religion of the Crucified. Such are the two, the dying and the living systems ; it
remains for him who will to taste and see what that life is which is the gift of Christ to them
that follow Him (46 — end).
The purpose of the tract, in common with the contra Genies, being to commend the
religion of Christ to acceptance, the argument is concerned more with the Incarnation as
a living fact, and with its place in the scheme of God's dealing with man, than with its analysis
as a theological doctrine. He does not enter upon the question, fruitful of controversy in
the previous century at Alexandria, but soon to burst forth into furious debate, of the Sonship
of the Word and of His relation to God the Father. Still less does he touch the Christo-
logical questions which arose with the decline of the Arian tempest, questions associated
with the names of ApoUinarius, Theodore, Cyril, Nestorius, Eutyches, Theodoret, and Dios-
corus. But we feel already that firm grasp of soteriological principles which mark him out
as the destined conqueror of Arianism, and which enabled him by a sure instinct to anticipate
unconsciously the theological difficulties which troubled the Church for the century after his
death. It is the broad comprehensive treatment of the subject in its relation to God, human
nature, and sin, that gives the work its interest to readers of the present day. In strong
reaction from modern or medieval theories of Redemption, which to the thoughtful Christian
of to-day seem arbitrary, or worse, it is with relief that men find that from the beginning it was
not so ; that the theology of the early Church interpreted the great Mystery of godliness
in terms which, if short of the fulness of the Pauline conception, are yet so free from
arbitrary assumptions, so true to human nature as the wisest of men know it, so true to
the worthiest and grandest ideas of God (see below, p. 33 ad fin.). The de Incarnatione^
then, is perhaps more appreciated in our day than at any date since the days of its writer.
It may therefore be worth while to devote a word or two to some peculiarities incidental
to its aim and method. We observe first of all how completely the power of the writer is
absorbed in the subject under discussion. It is therefore highly precarious to infer anytliing
from his silence even on points which might seem to require explanation in the course of
his argument. Not a word is said of the doctrine of the Trinity, nor of the Holy Spirit ;
this directly follows from the purpose of the work, in accordance with the general truth that
while the Church preaches Christ to the World, the Office and Personality of the Spirit
belongs to her inner life. The teaching of the tract with regard to the constitution of man
is another case in point. It might appear (§ 3, of. 11. 2, 13. 2) that Athanasius ascribed
the reasonable soul of man, and his immortality after death, not to the constitution of human
nature as such, but to the grace superadded to it by the Creator (^ tqv kot^ eiKova xap"),
INCARNATION OF THE WORD. 33
a grace which constituted men \oyiKoi (3. 4) by virtue of the power of the Logos, and which,
t/ not forfeited by sin, involved the privilege of immortality. We have, then, to carefully
consider whether Athanasius held, or meant to suggest, that man is by nature, and apart
from union with God, (i) rational, or (2) immortal. If we confine our view to the treatise
before us, there would be some show of reason in answering both questions in the negative ;
and with regard to immortality this has been recently done by an able correspondent of The
Times (April 9, 1890).
But that Athanasius held the essential rationality and immortality of the soul is abso-
lutely clear, if only from c, Gent. 32 and 33. We have, then, to find an explanation
of his language in the present treatise. With regard to immortality, it should be observed
(i) that the language employed (in 4. 5, where KeucoOrjum rod ehat del is explained by r6 8ia\v-
devTas fieveiv iu ra damra Kal rrj (fid 6 pa) Suggests a Continued Condition, and therefore something
short of annihilation, although not worthy of the name of existence or life, — (2) that even
in the worst of men the image of God is defaced, but not effaced (14. i, &c.), and that
even when grace is lost (7. 4), man cannot be as though the contact with the divine had
never taken place; — (3) that in this work, as by St. Paul in i Cor. xv., the final destiny of the
wicked is passed over (but for the general reference 56. 3) in silence. It may be added (4) that
Athanasius puts together a:// that separates man from irrational creatures without clearly drawing
the line between what belongs to the natural man and what to the kut (Ikovu x^pis. The subject
of eschatology is nowhere dealt with in full by Athanasius ; while it is quite certain (c. Gent. 33)
that he did not share the inclination of some earlier writers (see D.C.B. ii. p. 192) toward the
idea of conditional immortality, there is also no reason to think that he held with the Uni-
versalism of Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and others (see Migne, Patr. Gr. xxvii. p. 1404 a, also
1384 c, where 'the unfortunate Origen's ' opinions seem to be rejected, but with an implied
deprecation of harsh judgment). As to his view of the essential rationality of man (see
c. Gent. 32) the consideration (4) urged above once more applies (compare the discussion
in Harnack, Z>^. ii. 146 sqq.). Yet he says that man left to himself can have no idea of God
at all (11. i), and that this would deprive him of any claim to be considered a rational being
(ib. 2). The apparent inconsistency is removed if we understand that man may be rational
potentially (as all men are) and yet not rational in the sense of exercising reason (which is
the case with very many). In other words, grace gives not the faculty itself, but its integrity^
the latter being the result not of the mere psychological existence of the faculty, but of the
reaction upon it of its highest and adequate object. (The same is true to a great extent
of the doctrine of irv^vpa in the New Testament.)
A somewhat similar caution is necessary with regard to the analogy drawn out (41, &c.)
between the Incarnation and the Union of the Word with the Universe. The treatise itself
(17. I, fKTor KaT ovaiav, and see notes on 41) supplies the necessary corrective in this case.
It may be pointed out here that the real difference between Athanasius and the neo-Platonists
was not so much upon the Union of the Word with any created Substance, which they were
prepared to allow, as upon the exclusive Union of the Word with Man, in Contrast to His
essential distinctness from the Universe. This difference goes back to the doctrine of
Creation, which was fixed as a great gulf between the Christian and the Platonist view of the
Universe. The relation of the latter to the Word is fully discussed in the third part of the
contra Gentes, the teaching of which must be borne in mind while reading the forty-first
and following chapters of the present treatise.
Lastly, the close relation between the doctrine of Creation and that of Redemption
marks off the Sot'eriology of this treatise from that of the middle ages and of the Reformation.
Athanasius does not leave out of sight the idea of satisfaction for a debt. To him also the
Cross was the central purpose (20. 2, cf 9. i, 2, &c.) of His Coming. But the idea of
Restoration is most prominent in his determination of the necessity of the Incarnation*
VOL. IV. D
34 INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISE ON THE
God could have wiped out our guilt, had He so pleased, by a word (44) : but human nature
required to be healed, restored, recreated. This (dmKTiaai) is the foremost of the three ideas
(7. 5) which sum up his account of the ' dtgnus tanto Vindice nodus'^.
The translation which follows is that printed in 1885 (D. Nutt, second edition, 1891)
by the editor of this volume, with a very few changes (chiefly 2. 2, 8. 4, 34. 2, 44. 7, 8) :
it was originally made for the purpose of lectures at Oxford (1879— 1882), and the analytical
headings now prefixed to each chapter are extracted verbatim from notes made for the
same course of lectures. The notes have mostly appeared either in the former edition of the
translation, or appended to the Greek text published (D. Nutt, 1882) by the translator.
A few, however, have now been added, including some references to the Sermo Major, which
borrows wholesale from the present treatise (Prolegg. ch. III. § i. 37). Two other English
translations have appeared, the one (Parker, 1880) previous, the other (Religious Tract
Society, n.d.) subsequent to that of the present translator. The text followed is that of the
Benedictine editors, with a few exceptions. Of those that at all affect the sense, 43. 6 ((cai ro
o-oj/ia) and 51.2 (Kara t^j «8) are due to Mr. Marriott {Analecta Christiana, Oxf 1844). For the
others (13. 2, omission of /U17, 28. 3, Kara rov nipos rejecting conjectures of Montf. and Marriott,
42. 6, omission oi irenoiriKevai 57. 3, Koi ra for ra Kai) the present editor is alone responsible.
SYNOPSIS OF THE TREATISE.
PAGE
§ I. Introduction. The Redemptive work of the Word based on His initial relation to the Creature 36
FIRST PART.— The Incarnation of the Word.
§§ 2, 3. — Doctrine of Creation :
(i) Three erroneous views (2) rejected :
The Epicurean (materialistic) as failing to recognize a differentiating
Principle 3^
The Platonic (matter pre-existent) as not satisfying the idea of God 37
The Gnostic (dualistic) as contradictory to Scripture 37
(2) The true doctrine (3) and its application to the Creation of Man 37
This directly brings us to a
§§ 4 —10,— First Reason for the Incarnation :
By departing from the Word, men lost the Principle of Life, and were
wasting away (4, 5) 38
God could neither avert nor suffer this (6)' 39
The latter would argue weakness, the former changeableness (7) on
God's part 39
The Word alone could solve this dilemma (7. 4). This done by His
becoming man (8) and dying for us all (9). Reasonableness, and results
of this (10) 40
§§ II — 16. — Second Reason for the Incarnation :
In departing from the Word, men had also lost the Principle of Reason,
by which they knew God. In spite of God's witness to Himself, they were
sunk into superstition and mental degradation (11, 12) 42
How none but the Word could remedy this (13, 14) 43
How He actually did so (15, 16). The Incarnation, a revelation of the
Invisible Godhead 44
(§§17, 18 explain this in further detail) 45
* The Soteriology of Athanasius is well drawn out, and usefully compared with that of Anselm and of more modern theologians,
in Norris' Rttdiments of Theology, Appendix, ch. iii. (Rivington's, 1876). See also the discussion above. Prolegomena, ch. iv. g 3.
INCARNATION OF THE WORD. 35
PAGB
5 19. — Transition to Second Part:
The Incarnation an irresistible revelation of God. This is especially true
ofthe Death of Christ 46
SECOND PART. — The Death and Resurrection of Christ.
His Death :
§ 26. I. — Why necessary 47
§§ 21 — 25. 2. — Why death by Crucifixion —
a. — Why public, and not natural, but at the hands of others (21 — 23) ... 47
;8. — Why not of His own choosing (24) 49
^.—Why the Cross, of all deaths (25) 49
His rising again :
% 26. I.— Why on the third day 5°
§27. 2. — Changed relation of Death to mankind 50
|§ 28—32. 3.— Reality of His Resurrection —
This a.— To be tested by Experience (28) 5^
;3.— Implied by its visible effects (29— 31. 3) 5"
v.— Involved in the Nature ofthe Incarnate Word (31. 4) 53
5. — Confirmed by what we see; as is the case with all truth about the
unseen God (32. I — 5) 53
Summary of what is thus proved to be true (32. 6) 53
THIRD PART.— Refutation of Contemporary Unbelief.
§§33 — 4°- -^ — Refutation of Jews :
§§ -3—39. \.— From principles admitted by them—\.^., from prophecies relating to the
Messiah 54
(§ 39 forms the step to the next section) 57
8 40. 2.— From facts : cessation of the Jewish dispensation, as foretold by Daniel 57
g§ 41 55, '2,.— Refutation of Gentiles :
ss .J 45. I. — From principles admitted by them —
§§ 41, 42. a.— The Word, whose existence contemporary philosophy allowed, might
reasonably be supposed to unite Himself to some particular nature :
consequently, to human nature 5°
; 43, /3.— Reasons for His Union with Man in particular 59
§ 44, 7.— Reasons why man should not be restored by a mere fiat 60
8 45^ 5.— Results of the Scheme actually adopted 6i
ss 46—55. 2. — Refutation of Gentiles from facts —
§§ 46—50 o.— Discredit and decay, since the coming of Christ, of philosophic and
popular paganism "^
§§51,52. /3.— Influence of Christian morals on Society 64
§53. 7.— Influence of Christ on the individual 65
§§ 54^ 55, 8.— Nature and glory of Christ's Work : summary of His victory over
paganism ^5
^§ 56, 5y. CONCLUSION : the enquirer referred to the Scriptures. Indispensable
moral conditions of the investigation of Spiritual Truth 66
D 2
ON THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD.
§ I. Inti'oductory. — The subject of this treatise :
the humiliation and iiicarnation of the Word.
Presupposes the doctrine of Creation, and that
by the Word. The Father has saved the world
by Him through Whom He first made it.
Whereas in what precedes we have drawn
out — choosing a few points from amr ng many —
a sufficient account of the error of the heathen
concerning idols, and of the worship of idols,
and how they originally came to be invented ;
how, namely, out of wickedness men devised
for themselves the worshipping of idols : and
whereas we have by God's grace noted somewhat
also of the divinity of the Word of the Father,
and of Hisuniver>al Providence and power, and
that the Good Father through Him orders all
things, and all things are moved by Him, and in
Him are quickened : come now, Macarius '
(worthy of that name), and true lover of Christ,
let us follow up the faith of our religion % and
set forth also what relates to the Word's becom-
ing Man, and to His divine Appearing amongst
us, which Jews traduce and Greeks laugh to
scorn, but we worship ; in order that, all the
more for the seeming low estate of the Word,
your piety toward Him may be increased and
multiplied. 2. For the more He is mocked
among the unbelieving, the more witness does
He give of His own Godhead ; inasmuch as He
not only Himself demonstrates as possible what
men mistake, thinking impossible, but what men
deride as unseemly, this by His own goodness
He clothes with seemliness, and what men, in
their conceit of wisdom, laugh at as merely hu-
man. He by His own power demonstrates to be
divine, subduing the pretensions of idols by His
' See Contra Getttes, i. The word (McKapie) may be an ad-
jective only, but its occurrence in both places seems decisive. The
name was very common {Apol. c. Ar. passim). 'Macarius' was
a Christian, as the present passage shews : he is presumed {c. Gent.
L 7) to have access to Scripture.
2 T^s fixrePeias. See i Tim. iii. i6, and note i on £fe Deer. i.
supposed humiliation — bythe Cross — and those
who mock and disbelieve invisibly winning over
to recognise His divinity and power. 3. But to
treat this subject it is necessary to recall what
has been previously said ; in order that you
may neither fail to know the cause of the bodily
appearing of the Word of the Father, so high
and so great, nor think it a consequence of His
own nature that the Saviour has worn a body ;
but that being incorporeal by nature, and Word
from the beginning. He has yet of the loving-
kindness and goodness of His own Father been
manifested to us in a human body for our salva-
tion. 4. It is, then, proper for us to begin the
treatment of this subject by speaking of the crea-
tion of the universe, and of God its Artificer,
that so it may be duly perceived that the renewal
of creation has been the work of the self-same
Word that made it at the beginning. For it
will appear not inconsonant for the Father to
have wrought its salvation in Him by Whose
means He made it.
§ 2. Erroneous views of Creation rejected, (i)
Epicurean {fortuitous generation). But diver-
sity of bodies and parts argues a creating intel-
lect. (2.) Platonists { pre-existent matter.)
But this subjects God to human limitations^
tnaking Him not a creator but a mechanic. (3)
Gnostics {an alien Demiurge). Rejected front
Scripture.
Of the making of the universe and the
creation of all things many have taken different
views, and each man has laid down the law just
as he pleased. For some say that all things
have come into being of themselves, and in
a chance fashion ; as, for example, the Epi-
cureans, who tell us in their self-contempt,
that universal providence does not exist
speaking right in the face of obvious fact and
experience. 2. For if, as they say, everything
INCARNATION OF THE WORD.
37
has had its beginning of itself, and indepen-
dently of purpose, it would follow that every-
thing had come into 3 mere being, so as to be
alike and not distinct. For it would follow
in virtue of the unity of body that everything
must be sun or moon, and in the case of
men it would follow that the whole must be
hand, or eye, or foot. But as it is this is not
so. On the contrary, we see a distinction of
sun, moon, and earth ; and again, io the
case of human bodies, of foot, hand, and head.
Now, such separate arrangement as this tells us
not of their having come into being of them-
selves, but shews that a cause preceded them ;
.from which cause it is possible to apprehend
God also as the Maker and Orderer of all.
3. But others, including Plato, who is in such
repute among the Greeks, argue that God has
made the world out of matter previously exist-
ing and without beginning. For God could
have made nothing had not the material ex-
. isted already ; just as the wood must exist
ready at hand for the carpenter, to enable him
to work at all. 4. But in so saying they know
not that they are investing God with weakness.
For if He is not Himself the cause of the ma-
terial, but makes things only of previously ex-
isting material, He proves to be weak, because
unable to produce anything He makes without
the material ; just as it is without doubt a weak-
ness of the carpenter not to be able to make
anything required without his timber. For, ex
hypothesis had not the material existed, God
would not have made anything. And how
could He in that case be called Maker and Ar-
tificer, if He owes His ability to make to some
other source — namely, to the material? So that
if this be so, God will be on their theory a Me-
chanic only, and not a Creator out of nothing 4 ;
if, that is, He works at existing material, but is
not Himself the cause of the material. For He
could not in any sense be called Creator unless
He is Creator of the material of which the things
created have in their turn been made. 5. But
the sectaries imagine to themselves a different
artificer of all things, other than the Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ, in deep blindness even
as to the words they use. 6. For whereas the
Lord says to the Jews s : " Have ye not read
that from the beginning He which created
them made them male and female, and said,
For this cause shall a man leave his father
and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and
they twain shall become one flesh?" and then,
3 Or, " been made in one way only." In the next clause I formerly
translated the difficult words cos kirX ciofiaTos eVos ' as in the case of
the universe ; ' but although the rendering has commended itself to
others I now reluctantly admit that it puts too much into the
Greek (in spite of § 41. 5).
4 eU TO eii/ai. S Matt. xix. 4, &c
referring to the Creator, says, " What, there-
fore, GOD hath joined together let not man
put asunder :" how come these men to assert
that the creation is independent of the Father?
Or if, in the words of John, who says, making
no exception, "All things^ were made by Him,
and " without Him was not anything made,"
how could the artificer be another, distinct from
the Father of Christ ?
§ 3. The true doctrine. Creafton out of nothing,
of GocTs lavish bounty of being. Man created
above the rest, but incapable of itidependent
perseverance. Hence the exceptional atid supra-
natural gift of being in God's Image, with the
promise of bliss conditionally upon his perse-
verance in grace.
Thus do they vainly speculate. But the
godly teaching and the faith according to Christ
brands their foolish language as godlessness.
For it knows that it was not spontaneously,
because forethought is not absent ; nor of ex-
isting matter, because God is not weak; but that
out of nothing, and without its having any pre-
vious existence, God made the universe to exist
through His word, as He says firstly through
Moses : " In ? the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth ; " secondly, in the most
edifying book of the Shepherd, " First ^ of all
believe that God is one, which created and
framed all things, and made them to exist out
of nothing." 2. To which also Paul refers when
he says, " By 9 faith we understand that the
worlds have been framed by the Word of God,
so that what is seen hath not been made out
of things which do appear." 3. For God is
good, or rather is essentially the source of
goodness : nor ' could one that is good be
niggardly of anything: whence, grudging ex-
istence to none, He has made all things out
of nothing by His own Word, Jesus Christ
our Lord. And among these, having taken
especial pity, above all things on earth, upon
the race of men, and having perceived its
inability, by virtue of the condition of its
origin, to continue in one stay. He gave them
a further gift, and He did not barely create
man, as He did all the irrational creatures
on the earth, but made them after His own
image, giving them a portion even of the
power of His own Word ; so that having as
it were a kind of reflexion of the Word, and
being made rational, they might be able to
abide ever in blessedness, living the true life
which belongs to the saints in paradise. 4. But
knowing once more how the will of man could
6 John L 3. 7 Gen. i. i. ^ Herm. Mattd. i.
9 Heb. xi. 3. » c. Gent. xli. and Plato, Timaus 29 E!.
38
DE INCARNATIONE VERBI DEI.
sway to either side, in anticipation He secured
the grace given them by a law and by the
spot where He placed them. For He brought
them into His own garden, and gave them
a law : so that, if they kept the grace and
remained good, they might still keep the life
in paradise without sorrow or pain or care,
besides having the promise of incorruption
in heaven ; but that if they transgressed and
turned back, and became evil, they might
know that they were incurring that corruption
in death which was theirs by nature : no longer
to live in paradise, but cast out of it from that
time forth to die and to abide in death and
in corruption. 5. Now this is that of which
Holy Writ also gives warning, saying in the
Person of God : " Of every tree ^ that is in
the garden, eating thou slialt eat : but of the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil, ye
shall not eat of it, but on the day that ye eat,
dying ye shall die." But by "dying ye shall
die," what else could be meant than not dying
merely, but also abiding ever in the corruption
of death?
§§ 4, 5. Our creation a?id God's Incarnation most
intimately connected. As by the Word man
was called from non-existence into being, and
further received the grace of a divine life, so
by the one fault which forfeited that life they
again incurred corruption and untold sin a?id
misery filled the world.
You are wondering, perhaps, for what pos-
sible reason, having proposed to speak of the
Incarnation of the Word, we are at present
treating of the origin of mankind. But this,
too, properly belongs to the aim of our treatise.
2. For in speaking of the appearance of the
Saviour amongst us, we must needs speak also
of the origin of men, that you may know that
the reason of His coming down was because
of us, and that our transgression 3 called forth
the loving-kindness of the Word, that the Lord
should both make haste to help us and appear
among men. 3. For of His becoming In-
carnate we were the object, and for our sal-
vation He dealt so lovingly as to appear and
be born even in a human body. 4. Thus,
then, God has made man, and willed that
he should abide in incorruption ; but men,
having despised and rejected the contempla-
tion of God, and devised and contrived evil
for themselves (as was said 4 in the former
treatise), received the condemnation of death
with which they had been threatened; ^nd
from thenceforth no longer remained as they
Avere made, but s were being corrupted ac-
" Gen. ii. i6, sq. 3 Cf. Orat. ii. 54, note 4. 4 c. Gent. 3-5.
5 Eccles. vii. 29 ; Rom. i. 21, 22.
cording to their devices ; and death had the
mastery over them as king^. For transgres-
sion of the commandment was turning them
back to their natural state, so that just as they
have had their being out of nothing, so also,
as might be expected, they might look for
corruption into nothing in the course of time.
5. For if, out of a former normal state of non-
existence, they were called into being by the
Presence and loving-kindness of the Word,,
it followed naturally that when men were be-
reft of the knowledge of God and were turned
back to what was not (for what is evil is not,
but what is good is), they should, since they
derive their being from God who IS, be evei-
lastingly bereft even of being ; in other words,
that they should be disintegrated and abide
in death and corruption. 6. For man is by
nature mortal, inasmuch as he is made out
of what is not ; but by reason of his likeness
to Him that is (and if he still preserved this
likeness by keeping Him in his knowledge)"
he would stay his natural corruption, and
remain incorrupt ; as Wisdom ^ says : " The
taking heed to His laws is the assurance of
immortality;" but being incorrupt, he would
live henceforth as God, to which I suppose
the divine Scripture refers, when it says : " I
have^ said ye are gods, and ye are all sons
of the most Highest ; but ye die like men,
and fall as one of the princes."
5. For God has not only made us out of
nothing; but He gave us freely, by the Grace
of the Word, a life in correspondence with
God. But men, having rejected things eternal,
and, by counsel of the devil, turned to the
things of corruption, became the cause 9 of
their own corruption in death, being, as I said
before, by nature corruptible, but destined, by
the grace following from partaking of the Word,
to have escaped their natural state, had they
remained good. 2. For because of the Word
dwelling with them, even their natural cor-
ruption did not come near them, as Wisdom
also says ^ : " God made man for incorrup-
tion, and as an image of His own eternity ;
but by envy of the devil death came into the
world." But when this was come to pass,
men began to die, while corruption thence-
forward prevailed against them, gaining even
more than its natural power over the whole
race, inasmuch as it had, owing to the trans-
gression of the commandment, the threat of
the Deity as a further advantage against them.
3. For even in their misdeeds men had not
stopped short at any set limits ; but gradually
6 Rom. V. 14. 7 Wisd. vi. i8. 8 Ps. IxxxiL 6, sq._
9 Cf. Concil. Araus. 11. Can. 23. ' Suam volpntatem homine*
faciunt, non Dei, quando id agunt quod Deo displicet."
I Wisd. ii. 23, sq.
INCARNATION OF THE WORD
39
pressing forward, have passed on beyond all
measure : having to begin with been inventors
of wickedness and called down upon them-
selves death and corruption ; while later on,
having turned aside to wrong and exceeding
all lawlessness, and stopping at no one evil
but devising all manner of new evils in suc-
cession, they have become insatiable in sin-
ning. 4. For there were adulteries everywhere
and thefts, and the whole earth was full of
murders and plunderings. And as to corruption
and wrong, no heed was paid to law, but all
crimes were being practised everywhere, both
individually and jointly. Cities were at war
with cities, and nations were rising up against
nations ; and the whole earth was rent with
civil commotions and battles ; each man vying
with his fellows in lawless deeds. 8. Nor were
even crimes against nature far from them, but,
as the Apostle and witness of Christ says :
"For their ^ women changed the natural use
into that which is against nature : and like-
wise also the men, leaving the natural use of
the women, burned in their lust one toward
another, men with men working unseemliness,
and receiving in themselves that recompense
of their error which was meet."
§ 6. The human race then was wasting, God's
image zvas being effaced, and His work ruined.
Either, then, God must forego His spoken
word by which man had incurred ruin ; or
that which had shared in the being of the
Word must sink back agai7t into destructioft,
in which case God's design would be defeated.
What then 1 was God's goodness to suffer
this ? But if so, why had man been made 1
It tiwuid have been weakness, not goodness on
Goifs part.
For this cause, then, death having gained
upon men, and corruption abiding upon thera^
the race of man was perishing; the rational
man made in God's image was disappearing,
and the handiwork of God was in process of
dissolution. 2. For death, as I said above,
gained from that time forth a legal 3 hold over
us, and it was impossible to evade the law,
since it had been laid down by God because *
of the transgression, and the result was in
truth at once monstrous and unseemly, 3. For
it were monstrous, firstly, that God, having
spoken, should prove false — that, when once
He had ordained that man, if he transgressed
the commandment, should die the death, after
the transgression man should not die, but
God's word should be broken. For God would
Rom. i. 26, sq. 3 Gen. ii. 15.
4 Gal. iii. 19 (verbally only).
not be true, if, when He had said we should die,
man died not. 4. Again, it were unseemly
that creatures once made rational, and having
partaken of the Word, should go to ruin, and
turn again toward non-existence by the way of
corruption s. 5. For it were not worthy of
God's goodness that the things He had made
should waste away, because of the deceit
practised on men by the devil. 6. Especially
it was unseemly to the last degree that God's
handicraft among men should be done away,
either because of their own carelessness, or
because of the deceitfulness of evil spirits.
7. So, as the rational creatures were wasting
and such works in course of ruin, what was
God in His goodness to do ? Suffer corruption
to prevail against them and death to hold them
fast ? And where were the profit of their having
been made, to begin with ? For better were they
not made, than once made, left to neglect and
ruin. 8. For neglect reveals weakness, and not
goqdness on God's part — if, that is. He allows
His own work to be ruined when once He had
made it — more so than if He had never made
man at all. 9. For if He had not made them^
none could impute weakness ; but once He had
made them, and created them out of nothing, it
were most monstrous for the work to be ruined,
and that before the eyes of the Maker. 10. It
was, then, out of the question to leave men to
the current of corruption ; because this would be
unseemly, and unworthy of God's goodness.
§ 7. On the other hand there was the consistency of
God's nature, not to be sacrificed for our profft.
Were men, then, to be called upon to repent ?
But repentance cannot avert the execution of a
law ; still less can it remedy a fallen nature.
We have incurred corruptiofi and need to be re-
stored to the Grace of God's Image. None could
renew but He Who had created. He alone could
(i) recreate all, (2) suffer for all, (3) represent
all to the Father.
But just as this consequence must needs
hold, so, too, on the other side the just claims ''
of God lie against it : that God should appear
true to the law He had laid down concerning
death. For it were monstrous for God, the
Father of truth, to appear a liar for our profit
and preservation. 2. So here, once more, what
possible course was God to take ? To demand
repentance of men for their transgression ? For
this one might pronounce worthy of God ; as
5 Cf. Anselm cur Deus Homo, II. 4, 'Valde alienum est ab
eo, ut ullam rationalem naturam penitus perire sinat."
6 Literally "what is reasonable with respect to God," i.e. what
is involved in His attributes and in His relation to us, cf. Rom. iii.
26, cf. Anselm. ib. I. 12, who slightly narrows down the idea 01
Athan. ' Si peccatum sic dimittitur impunitum, similiter erit apud
Deum peccanti et non peccanti, quod Deo ncn convemt ....
I nconvenientia autem iniustitia est.'
40
DE INCARNATIONE VERBI DEL
though, just as from transgression men have
become set towards corruption, so from repent-
ance they may once more be set in the way of
incorruption. 3. But repentance would, firstly,
fail to guard the just claim 7 of God. For He
would still be none the more true, if men did
not remain in the grasp of death ; nor, secondly,
does repentance call men back from what is
their nature — it merely stays them from acts
of sin. 4. Now, if there were merely a mis-
demeanour in question, and not a consequent
corruption, repentance were well enough. But
if, when transgression had once gained a start,
men became involved in that corruption which
was their nature, and were deprived of the
grace which they had, being in the image of
God, what further step was needed? or what
was required for such grace and such recall,
but the Word of God, which had also at the
beginning made everything out of nought ?
5. For His it was once more both to bring
the corruptible to incorruption, and to main-
tain intact the just claim ^ of the Father upon
all. For being Word of the Father, and above
all, He alone of natural fitness was both able
to recreate everything, and worthy to suffer on
behalf of all and to be ambassador for all with
the Father
§ 8. The Word, then, visited that earth in which
He was yet always present ; and saw all these
evils. He takes a body of our Nature, and
that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He
makes it His own, wherein to reveal Himself,
conquer death, and restore life.
For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and
incorruptible and immaterial Word of God
comes to our realm, howbeit he was not far
from us ^ before. For no part of Creation is
left void of Him : He has filled all things every-
where, remaining present with His own Father.
But He comes in condescension to shew loving-
kindness upon us, and to visit us. 2. And
seeing the race of rational creatures in the way
to perish, and death reigning over them by
corruption ; seeing, too, that the threat against
transgression gave a firm hold to the corruption
which was upon us, and that it was monstrous
that 9 before the law was fulfilled it should fall
through : seeing, once more, the unseemliness
of what was come to pass : that the things
whereof He Himself was Artificer were pass-
ing away : seeing, further, the exceeding
wickedness of men, and how by little and
little they had increased it to an intolerable
pitch against themselves : and seeing, lastly,
how all men were under penalty of death : He
7 See previous note.
8 Acts xvii. 27.
9 Cf. vi. 3.
took pity on our race, and had mercy on our
infirmity, and condescended to our corruption,
and, unable to bear that death should have the
mastery — lest the creature should perish, and
His Father's handiwork in men be spent for
nought — He takes unto Himself a body, and that
of no different sort from ours. 3. For He did
not simply will to become embodied, or will
merely to appear ^. For if He willed merely to
appear, He was able to effect His divine appear-
ance by some other and higher means as well.
But He takes a body of our kind, and not
merely so, but from a spotless and stainless
virgin, knowing not a man, a body clean and
in very truth pure from intercourse of men.
For being Himself mighty, and Artificer of
everything, He prepares the body in the Virgin
as a temple unto Himself, and makes it His
very own ^ as an instrument, in it manifested,
and in it dwelling. 4. And thus taking from
our bodies one of like nature, because all were
under penalty of the corruption of death He
gave it over to death in the stead of all, and
ofi"ered it to the Father — doing this, moreover,
of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly,
all being held to have died in Him, the lav.'
involving the ruin of men might be undone
(inasmuch as its power was fully spent in the
Lord's body, and had no longer holding-ground
against men, his peers), and that, secondly,
whereas men had turned toward corruption,
He might turn them again toward incorruption,
and quicken them from death by the appro-
priation ^ of His body and by the grace of the
Resurrection, banishing death from them like
straw from the fire \
% 9. The Word, since death alone could stay the
plague, took a mortal body which, united with
Him, should avail for all, and by partaking of
His immortality stay the corricption of the Race.
By being above all, He made His Flesh an
offering for our souls ; by being one with us all.
He clothed us with immortality. Simile to
illustrate this.
For the Word, perceiving that no otherwise
could the corruption of men be undone save by
death as a necessary condition, while it was im-
possible for the Word to suffer death, being
immortal, and Son of the Father ; to this end
He takes to Himself a body capable of death,
that it, by partaking of the Word Who is above
all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all,
and might, because of the Word wliich was come
1 Cf. 43. 2.
2 Cf. 07-at. iii. 33, note s, also ib. 31, note 10.
3 The simile is inverted. Men are the ' straw,' death the ' fire.'
cf. xliv. 7.
INCARNATION OF THE WORD.
41
to dwell in it, remain incorruptible, and that
thenceforth corruption might be stayed from all
by the Grace of the Resurrection. Whence,
by offering unto death the body He Himself
had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free
from any stain, straightway He put away death
from all His peers by the offering of an equiv-
alent. 2. For being over all, the Word of God
naturally by offering His own temple and cor-
poreal instrument for the life ^ of all satisfied
the debt by His death. And thus He, the in-
corruptible Son of God, being conjoined with
all by a like nature, naturally clothed all with
incorruption, by the promise of the resurrection.
For the actual corruption in death has no
longer holding-ground against men, by reason
of the Word, which by His one body has come
to dwell among tliem. 3. And like as s when
a great king has entered into some large city
and taken up his abode in one of the houses
there, such city is at all events held worthy of
high honour, nor does any enemy or bandit
any longer descend upon it and subject it ; but,
on the contrary, it is thought entitled to all care,
because of the king's having taken up his resi-
dence in a single house there : so, too, has it
been with the Monarch of all. 4. For now
that He has come to our realm, and taken up
his abode in one body among His peers, hence-
forth the whole conspiracy of the enemy against
mankind is checked, and the corruption of
death which before was prevailing against them
is done away. For the race of men had gone
to ruin, had not the Lord and Saviour of ail,
the Son of God, come among us to meet the
end of death ^.
^10. By a like simile, the reasonableness of the
work of redemption is shewn. Mow Christ
wiped away our ruin, and provided its anti-
dote by His own teaching. Scripture proofs
of the Incarnation of the Word, and of the
Sacrifice He wrought.
Now in truth this great work was peculiarly
suited to God's goodness, i. For if a king,
having founded a house or city, if it be beset
by bandits from the carelessness of its inmates,
does not by any means neglect it, but avenges
and reclaims it as his own work, having regard
not to the carelessness of the inhabitants, but
to what beseems himself; much more did God
the Word of the all-good Father not neglect
the race of men. His work, going to corruption :
but, while He blotted out the death which had
4 a.vTi'pvxov.
5 Posbibly suggested by the practice of the emperors. Con-
stantinople was thus dignified a few years later (326). For this
simile compare Sermo Major de Fide, c 6.
6 Or, " to put an end to death."
ensued by the ofifering of His own body, He
corrected their neglect by His own teaching,
restoring all that was man's by His own power.
2. And of this one may be assured at the
hands of the Saviour's own inspired writers,
if one hapi)en upon their writings, where they
say : " For the love of Christ 7 constraineth
us ; because we thus judge, that if one died
for all, then all died, and He died for all
that we should no longer hve unto ourselves,
but unto Him Who for our sakes died and
rose again," our Lord Jesus Christ. And,
again : " But ^ we behold Him, Who hath
been made a little lower than the angels,
even Jesus, because of the suffering of death
crowned with glory and honour, that by the
grace of God He should taste of death for
every man." 3. Then He also points out the
reason why it was necessary for none other
than God the Word Himself to become in-
carnate ; as follows : " For it became Him,
for Whom are all things, and through Whom
are all things, in bringing many sons unto
glory, to make the Captain of their salvation
perfect through suffering;" by which words
He means, that it belonged to none other to
bring man back from the corruption which had
begun, than the Word of God, Who had also
made them from the beginning. 4. And that
it was in order to the sacrifice for bodies such
as His own that the Word Himself also as-
sumed a body, to this, also, they refer in these
words 9: "Forasmuch then as the children
are the sharers in blood and flesh, He also
Himself in like manner partook of the same,
that through death He might bring to nought
Him that had the power of death, that
is, the devil; and might deliver them who,
through fear of death, were all their lifetime
subject to bondage." 5. For by the sacrifice
of His own body, He both put an end to the
law which was against us, and made a new
beginning of life for us, by the hope of resur-
rection wliich He has given us. For since
from man it was that death prevailed over
men, for this cause conversely, by the Word
of God being made man has come about the
destruction of death and the resurrection of
life; as the man which bore Christ^ saith :
For^ since by man came death, by man
came also the resurrection of the dead. For
as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall
all be made alive : " and so forth. For no
longer now do we die as subject to condemna-
tion ; but as men who rise from the dead we
await the general resurrection of all, " which 3
7 2 Cor. V. 14. 8 Heb. ii. 9, sf. 9 Heb. ii. 14. *f-
I Of. Gal. vi. 17. " I Cor. xv. ji, Sf. 3 i Tim. vi. 15.
42
DE INCARNATIONE VERBI DEI.
in its own times He shall show," even God,
Who has also wrought it, and bestowed it
upon us. 6. This then is the first cause of
the Saviour's being made man. But one might
see from the following reasons also, that His
gracious coming amongst us was fitting to have
taken place.
I II. Second reason for the Incarnation. God,
knowing that man was not by nature sufficient
to know Him, gave him, in order that he
might have some profit in being, a knowledge
of Himself. He made them i?i the Image of
the Word, that thus they might kiiow the
Word, and through Him the Father. Yet
man, despising this, fell into idolatry, leaving
the unseen God for magic and astrology ; and
all this in spite of God^s manifold revelation of
Himself.
God, Who has the power over all things,
when He was making the race of men through
His own Word, seeing the weakness of their
nature, that it was not sufficient of itself to
know its Maker, nor to get any idea at all
of God ; because while He was uncreate, the
creatures had been made of nought, and while
He was incorporeal, men had been fashioned
in a lower way in the body, and because in
every way the things made fell far short of being
able to comprehend and know their Maker —
taking pity, I say, on the race of men, inas-
much as He is good. He did not leave them
destitute of the knowledge of Himself, lest
they should find no profit in existing at all*.
2. For what profit to the creatures if they
knew not their Maker? or how could they
be rational without knowing the Word (and
Reason) of the Father, in Whom they received
their very being ? For there would be nothing
to distinguish them even from brute creatures
if they had knowledge of nothing but earthly
things. Nay, why did God make them at all,
as He did not wish to be known by them ?
3. Whence, lest this should be so, being good,
He gives them a share in His own Image,
our Lord Jesus Christ, and makes them after
His own Image and after His likeness : so
that by such grace perceiving the Image, that
is, the Word of the Father, they may be able
through Him to get an idea of the Father, and
knowing their Maker, live the happy and truly
blessed life. 4. But men once more in their
perversity having set at nought, in spite of all
this, the grace given them, so wholly rejected
God, and so darkened their soul, as not merely
to forget their idea of God, but also to fashion
for themselves one invention after another.
4 Cf. 13. 2.
For not only did they grave idols for them-
selves, instead of the truth, and honour things
that were not before the living God, " and 5
serve the creature rather than the Creator,"
but, worst of all, they transferred the honour
of God even to stocks and stones and to every
material object and to men, and went even
further than this, as we have said in the former
treatise. 5. So far indeed did their impiety
go, that they proceeded to worship devils,
and proclaimed them as gods, fulfilling their
own ^ lusts. For they performed, as was said
above, offerings of brute animals, and sacrifices
of men, as was meet for them 7, binding them-
selves down all the faster under their madden-
ing inspirations. 6. For this reason it was
also that magic arts were taught among them,
and oracles in divers places led men astray,
and all men ascribed the influences of their
birth and existence to the stars and to all
the heavenly bodies, having no thought of
anything beyond what was visible. 7. And,
in a word, everything was full of irreligion and
lawlessness, and God alone, and His Word,
was unknown, albeit He had not hidden Him-
self out of men's sight, nor given the know-
ledge of Himself in one way only ; but had,
on the contrary, unfolded it to them in many
forms and by many ways.
§12. For though man was created in grace, Gody
foreseeing his forgetfulness, provided also the
works of creation to remind man of Him.
Yet further. He ordained a law and ProphetSy
whose ministry was meant for all the world.
Yet men heeded only their own lusts.
For whereas the grace of the Divine Image
was in itself sufficient to make known God the
Word, and through Him the Father ; still God,
knowing the weakness of men, made provision
even for their carelessness : so that if they
cared not to know God of themselves, they
might be enabled through the works of crea-
tion to avoid ignorance of the Maker. 2. But
since men's carelessness, by little and little,
descends to lower things, God made provision,
once more, even for this weakness of theirs,
by sending a law, and prophets, men such
as they knew, so that even if they were not
ready to look up to heaven and know their
Creator, they might have their instruction from
those near at hand. For men are able to
learn from men more directly about higher
things. 3. So it was open to them, by looking
into the height of heaven, and perceiving the
5 Cf. Rom. i. 25.
6 avTO)v may refer to the Sai/iovei, in which case compare
c. Gent. 25. sub fin,
7 See c. Gent. 25. i, Ta ojuoia tois 6/iototf. Or the text may
mean simply " as their due."
I
INCARNATION OF THE WORD-
43
harmony of creation, to know its Ruler, the
Word of the Father, Who, by His own pro-
vidence over all things makes known the Father
to all, and to this end moves all things, that
through Him all may know God. 4. Or, if
this were too much for them, it was possible
for them to meet at least the holy men, and
through them to learn of God, the Maker of
all things, the Father of Christ ; and that the
worship of idols is godlessness, and full of all
impiety. 5. Or it was open to them, by know-
ing the law even, to cease from all lawlessness
and live a virtuous life. For neither was the
law for the Jews alone, nor were the Prophets
sent for them only, but, though sent to the
Jews and persecuted by the Jews, they were
for all the world a holy school of the know-
ledge of God and the conduct of the soul.
6. God's goodness then and loving-kindness
being so great — men nevertheless, overcome
by the pleasures of the moment and by the
illusions and deceits sent by demons, did not
raise their heads toward the truth, but loaded
themselves the more with evils and sins, so
as no longer to seem rational, but from their
ways to be reckoned void of reason.
§ 13. Here again, zuas God to keep silence 1 to
allow to false gods the worship He made us
to render to Himself 1 A king whose subjects
had revolted would, after sending letters and
messages, go to them in person. Hotv much
more shall God restore in us the grace of His
image. This men, themselves but copies, could
not do. Hence the Word Himself must come
{i) to recreate, (2) to destroy death in the Body.
So, then, men having thus become brutalized,
and demoniacal deceit thus clouding every
place, and hiding the knowledge of the true
God, what was God to do? To keep still
silence at so great a thing, and suffer men
to be led astray by demons and not to know
God ? 2. And what was the use of man having
been originally made in God's image ? For
it had been better for him to have been made
simply like a brute animal, than, once made
rational, for him to live ^ the life of the brutes.
3. Or where was any necessity at all for his
receiving the idea of God to begin with? For
if he be not fit to receive it even now, it were
better it had not been given him at first.
4. Or what profit to God Who has made them,
or what glory to Him could it be, if men,
made by Him, do not worship Him, but think
that others are their makers ? For God thus
proves to have made these for others instead of
for Himself 5. Once ai^ain, a merely human
king does not let the lands he has colonized
8 The Bened. text is corrected here on the ground (i) of MS.
evidence, (2) of construction (for v/hich see 6. 7, and c. Gent. 20. 3).
pass to others to serve them, nor go over to
other men ; but he warns them by letters, and
often sends to them by friends, or, if need be,
he comes in person, to put them to rebuke
in the last resort by his presence, only that
they may not serve others and his own work
be spent for nought. 6. Shall not God mucli
more spare His own creatures, that they be not
led astray from Him and serve things of nought ?
especially since such going astray proves the
cause of their ruin and undoing, and since it
was unfitting that they should perish which
had once been partakers of God's image.
7. What then was God to do? or what was
to be done save the renewing of that which
was in God's image, so that by it men might
once more be able to know Him? But how
could this have come to pass save by the
presence of the very Image of God, our Lord
Jesus Christ? For by men's means it was im-
possible, since they are but made after an
image ; nor by angels either, for not even
they are (God's) images. Whence the Word
of God came in His own person, that, as He
was the Image of the Father, He might be
able to create afresh the man after the image.
8. But, again, it could not else have taken
place had not death and corruption been done
away. 9. Whence He took, in natural fitness,
a mortal body, that while death might in it be
once for all done away, men made after His
Image might once more be renewed. None
other then was sufficient for this need, save
the Image of the Father.
§14. A portrait once effaced must be restored
from the origifial. Thus the Son of the Father
came to seek, save, and regenerate. No other
way was possible. Blinded himself, man could
not see to heal. The witness of creation had
failed to preserve Him, and could not bring
Him back. The Word alone could do so.
But how ? only by revealing Hifnself as man.
For as, when the likeness painted on a panel
has been effaced by stains from without, he
whose likeness it is must needs come once
more to enable the portrait to be renewed on
the same wood : for, for the sake of his picture,
even the mere wood on which it is painted
is not thrown away, but the outUne is renewed
upon it ; 2. in the same way also the most
holy Son of the Father, being the Image of the
Father, came to our region to renew man once
made in His likeness, and find him, as one lost,
by the remission of sins ; as He says Himself
in the Gospels : " I came 9 to find and to save
the lost." Whence He said to the Jews also :
" Except ^ a man be born again," not meaning,
9 Cf. Luc. xix. 10.
I See John iii. 3, 5.
44
DE INCARNATIONE VERBI DEI.
as they thought, birth from woman, but speak
ing of the soul born and created anew in the
likeness of God's image. 3. But since wild
idolatry and godlessness occupied the world,
and the knowledge of God was hid, whose part
was it to teach the v/orld concerning the Father?
Man's, might one say? But it was not in man's
power to penetrate everywhere beneath the
sun ; for neither had they the physical strength
to run so far, nor would they be able to claim
credence in this matter, nor were they sufficient
by themselves to withstand the deceit and im-
positions of evil spirits. 4. For where all were
smitten and confused in soul from demoniacal
deceit, and the vanity of idols, how was it
possible for them to win over man's soul and
man's mind— whereas they cannot even see
them? Or how can a man convert what he
does not see? 5. But perhaps one might say
creation was enough ; but if creation were
enough, these great evils would never have
come to pass. For creation was there already,
and all the same, men were grovelling in the
same error concerning God. 6. Who, then,
was needed, save the Word of God, that sees
both soul and mind, and that gives movement
to all things in creation, and by them makes
known the Father ? For He who by His own
Providence and ordering of all things was
teaching men concerning the Father, He it
was that could renew this same teaching as
well. 7. How, then, could this have been
done? Perhaps one might say, that the same
means were open as before, for Him to shew
forth the truth about the Father once more
by means of the work of creation. But this
was no longer a sure means. Quite the con-
trary ; for men missed seeing this before, and
have turned their eyes no longer upward but
downward. 8. Whence, naturally, willing to
profit men, He sojourns here as man, taking
to Himself a body like the others, and from
things of earth, that is by the works of His
body [He teaches them], so that they who
would not know Him from His Providence
and rule over all things, may even from the
works done by His actual body know the Word
of God which is in the body, and through Him
the Father.
§ 1 5. Thus the Word condescended to marCs en-
grossment in corporeal i hi figs, by even taking
a body. All man's superstitions He met half-
way ; whether men were inclined to worship
Nature, Man, Demons, or the dead, He shewed
Himself Lord of all these.
For as a kind teacher who cares for His
disciples, if some of them cannot profit by
higher subjects, comes down to their level,
and teaches them at any rate by simpler
courses ; so also did the Word of God. As
Paul also says: "For seeing^ that in the
wisdom of God the world through its wisdom
knew not God, it was X5od's good pleasure
through the fooUshness of the word preached
to save them that believe." 2. For seeing
that men, having rejected the contemplation
of God, and with their eyes downward, as
though sunk in the deep, were seeking about
for God in nature and in the world of sense,
feigning gods for themselves of mortal men
and demons ; to this end the loving and
general Saviour of all, the Word of God, takes
to Himself a body, and as Man walks among
men and meets the senses of all men half-way 3,
to the end, I say, that they who think that
God is corporeal may from what the Lord
effects by His body perceive the truth, and
through Him recognize ■♦ the Father. 3. So,
men as they were, and human in all their
thoughts, on whatever objects they fixed their
senses, there they saw themselves met half-
way 3, and taught the truth from every side.
4. For if they looked with awe upon the Crea-
tion, yet they saw how she confessed Christ
as Lord ; or if their mind was swayed toward
men, so as to think them gods, yet from the
Saviour's works, supposing they compared them,
the Saviour alone among men appeared Son
of God ; for there were no such works done
among the rest as have been done by the
Word of God. 5. Or if they were biassed
toward evil spirits, even, yet seeing them cast
out by the Word, they were to know that He
alone, the Word of God, was God, and that
the spirits were none. 6. Or if their mind
had already sunk even to the dead, so as to
worship heroes, and the gods spoken of in the
poets, yet, seeing the Saviour's resurrection,
they were to confess them to be false gods,
and that the Lord alone is true, the Word
of the Father, that was Lord even of death.
7. For this cause He was both born and ap-
peared as Man, and died, and rose again,
dulhng and casting into the shade the works
of all former men by His own, that in what-
ever direction the bias of men might be, from
thence He might recall them, and teach them
of His own true Father, as He Himself says:
" I came to save and to find that which was
losts."
§16. He came then to attract man's sense-bound
attention to Himself as man, and so to lead
him on to know Him as God.
For men's mind having finally fallen to
things of sense, the Word disguised Himself
3 I Cor. i. 21. 3 Lit. "draws toward Himself."
4 Lit. " infer." 5 Cf. 14- 2.
INCARNATION OF THE WORD.
45
by appearing in a body, that He might, as
Man, transfer men to Himself, and centre
their senses on Himself, and, men seeing Him
thenceforth as Man, persuade them by the
works He did that He is not Man only, but
also God, and the Word and Wisdom of the
true God. 2. This, too, is what Paul means
to point out when he says : " That ye ^ being
rooted and grounded in love, may be strong
to apprehend with all the saints what is the
breadth and length, and height and depth,
and to know the love of Christ which pass-
eth knowledge, that ye may be filled unto all
the fulness of God." 3. For by the Word re-
vealing Himself everywhere, both above and
beneath, and in the depth and in the breadth —
above, in the creation ; beneath, in becoming
man- in the depth, in Hades; and in the breadth,
in the world^all things have been filled with
the knowledge of God. 4. Now for this cause,
also. He did not immediately upon His coming
accomplish His sacrifice on behalf of all, by
offering His body to death and raising it again,
for by this 7 means He would have made Him-
self invisible. But He made Himself visible
enough by what? He did, abiding in it, and
doing such works, and shewing such signs,
as made Him known no longer as Man, but
as God the Word. 5. For by His becoming
Man, the Saviour was to accomplish both
works of love; first, in putting away death
from VIS and renewing us again ; secondly,
being unseen and invisible, in manifesting and
making Himself known by His works to be
the Word of the Father, and the Ruler and
King of the universe.
§ 17, JIo7v the Incarnation did not limit the
ubiquity of the Word, nor diminish His
Purity. {Simile of the Sun.)
For He was not, as might be imagined, cir-
cumscribed in the body, nor, while present in
the body, was He absent elsewhere; nor,
while He moved the body, was the universe
left void of His working and Providence; but,
thing most marvellous, Word as He was, so
far from being contained by anything, He
rather contained all things Himself; and just
as while present in the whole of Creation, He
is at once distinct in being from the universe,
and present in all things by His own power, —
giving order to all things, and over all and in
all revealing His own providence, and giving
life to each thing and all things, including the
whole without being included, but being in His
own Father alone wholly and in every re-
spect,— 2. thus, even while present in a human
* Eph. iii. 18, sq.
7 6ta toOtou, perhaps, in both places — "by it," viz. His body.
body and Himself quickening it, He was, with-
out inconsistency, quickening the universe as
well, and was in every process of nature, and was
outside the whole, and while known from the
body by His works, He was none the less
manifest from the working of the universe as
well. 3. Now, it is the function of soul to be-
hold even what is outside its own body, by
acts of thought, without, however, working
outside its own body, or moving by its presence
things remote from the body. Never, that is,
does a man, by thinking of things at a distance,
by that fact either move or displace them ; nor
if a man were to sit in his own house and reason
about the heavenly bodies, would he by that
fact either move the sun or make the heavens
revolve. But he sees that they move and have
their being, without being actually able to in-
fluence them. 4. Now, the Word of God in
His man's nature was not like that; for He
was not bound to His body, but rather was
Hiniself wielding it, so that He was not only
in it, but was actually in everything, and
while external to the universe, abode in His
Father only. 5. And this was the wonder-
ful thing that He was at once walking as
man, and as the Word was quickening all
things, and as the Son was dwelling with His
Father. So that not even when the Virgin
bore Him did He suffer any change, nor by
being in the body was [His glory] dulled : but,
on the contrary, He sanctified the body also.
6. For not even by being in the universe does
He share in its nature, but all things, on the
contrary, are quickened and sustained by Him.
7. For if the sun too, which was made by Him,
and which we see, as it revolves in the heaven^
is not defiled^ by touching the bodies upon
earth, nor is it put out by darkness, but on the
contrary itself illuminates and cleanses them
also, much less was the all-holy Word of God,
Maker and Lord also of the sun, defiled by being
made known in the body ; on the contrary,
being incorruptible, He quickened and cleansed
the body also, which was in itself mortal :
"who 9 did," for so it says, "no sin, neither
was guile found in His mouth."
§18. How the Word and Power of God uwrks
in His human actions : by casting out devils,
by Miracles, by His Birth of the Virgin.
Accordingly, when inspired writers on this
matter speak of Him as eating and being born,
understand ' that the body, as body, was born,
and sustained with food corresponding to its
nature, while God, the Word Himself, Who
8 Cr. St. Aug. de Fid. et Syml. lo, Rufin. in Symb. A/>osi. 12.
So also TertuU. adv. Marc. ' Quodcunque induerit ipse dignum
fecit.'
9 I Pet. ii. 22. ' Compare Orat. iii. 3I: note 11.
46
DE INCARNATIONE VERBI DEL
was united with the body, while ordering all
things, also by the works He did in the body
shewed Himself to be not man, but God the
Word. But these things are said of Him,
because the actual body which ate, was born,
and suffered, belonged to none other but to
the Lord : and because, having become man,
it was proper for these things to be predicated
of Him as man, to shew Him to have a body
in truth, and not in seeming. 2. But just as
from these things He was known to be bodily
present, so from the works He did in the body
He made Himself known to be Son of God.
Whence also He cried to the unbelieving Jews ;
" If ^ I do not the works of My Father, believe
Me not. But if I do them, though ye believe
not Me, believe My works ; that ye may know
and understand that the Father is in Me, and
I in the Father." 3. For just as, though in-
visible. He is known through the works of
creation ; so, having become man, and being
in the body unseen, it may be known from His
works that He Who can do these is not man,
but the Power and Word of God. 4. For His
charging evil spirits, and their being driven
forth, this deed is not of man, but of God. Or
who that saw Him healing the diseases to
which the human race is subject, can still think
Him man and not God? For He cleansed lepers,
made lame men to walk, opened the hearing of
deaf men, made blind men to see again, and
in a word drove away from men all diseases
-and infirmities : from which acts it was possible
even for the most ordinary observer to see His
Godhead. For who that saw Him give back 3
what was deficient to men born lacking, and
open the eyes of the man blind from his birth,
would have failed to perceive that the nature of
men was subject to Him, and that He was its
Artificer and Maker ? For He that gave back
that which the man from his birth had not, must
be, it is surely evident, the Lord also of men's
natural birth. 5. Therefore, even to begin with,
Avhen He was descending to us, He fashioned
His body for Himself from a Virgin, thus to
afford to all no small proof of His Godhead, in
that He Who formed this is also Maker of
everything else as well. For who, seeing
a body proceeding forth from a Virgin alone
without man, can fail to infer that He Who
appears in it is Maker and Lord of other bodies
also ? 6. Or who, seeing the substance of
water changed and transformed into wine, fails
to perceive that He Who did this is Lord and
Creator of the substance of all waters ? For to
this end He went upon the sea also as its
Master, and walked as on dry land, to afford
evidence to them that saw it of His lordship
John X. 37, sg.
3 Cf. 49. 2.
over all things. And in feeding so vast a mul-
titude on little, and of His own self yielding
abundance where none was, so that from five
loaves five thousand had enough, and left so
much again over, did He shew Himself to be
any other than the very Lord Whose Providence
is over all things ?
§19. Afan, 2if///io7'ed by nature, was to be taught
to know God by that sacred Manhood, Whose
deity all nature confessed, especially in His
Death.
But all this it seemed well for the Saviour to
do ; that since men had failed to know His
Providence, revealed in the Universe, and had
failed to perceive His Godhead shewn in
creation, they might at any rate from the
works of His body recover their sight, and
through Him receive an idea of the know-
ledge of the Father, inferring, as I said
before, from particular cases His Providence
over the whole. 2. For who that saw His
power over evil spirits, or who that saw the
evil spirits confess that He was their Lord,
will hold his mind any longer in doubt whether
this be the Son and Wisdom and Power
of God? 3. For He made even the creation
break silence : in that even at His death,
marvellous to relate, or rather at His actual
trophy over death — the Cross I mean — all
creation was confessing that He that was made
manifest and suffered in the body was not
man merely, but the Son of God and Saviour
of all. For the sun hid His face, and the
earth quaked and the mountains were rent :
all men were awed. Now these things shewed
that Christ on the Cross was God, while all
creation was His slave, and was witnessing by
its fear to its Master's presence. Thus, then,
God the Word shewed Himself to men by His
works. But our next step must be to recount
and speak of the end of His bodily life and
course, and of the nature of the death of His
body ; especially as this is the sum of our
faith, and all men without exception are full of
it : so that you may know that no whit the less
from this also Christ is known to be God and
the Son of God.
§20. JS/one, then, could bestow incorruption, but
He Who had made, none restore the likeness of
God, save His Own Image, none quicken, but
the Life, none teach, but the Word. And He,
to pay our debt of death, must also die for us,
and rise again as our first fruits from the grave.
Mortal then fore His body must be ; corruptible,
His Body could not be.
We have, then, now stated in part, as far as
it was possible, and as ourselves had been able
to understand, the reason of His bodily ap-
INCARNATION OF THE WORD.
47
pearing; that it was in the power of none
other to turn the corruptible to incorruption,
except the Saviour Himself, that had at the be-
ginning also made all things out of nought :
and that none other could create anew the
likeness of God's image for men, save the
Image of the Father ; and that none other
could render the mortal immortal, save our
Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Very Life * ;
and that none other could teach men of the
Father, and destroy the worship of idols, save
the Word, that orders all things and is alone
the true Only-begotten Son of the Father.
2. But since it was necessary also that the
debt owing from all should be paid again :
for, as I have already said s, it was owing that
all should die, for which especial cause, indeed.
He came among us : to this intent, after the
-proofs of His Godhead from His works. He
next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of
all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead
of all, in order firstly to make men quit and
free of their old trespass, and further to shew
Himself more powerful even than death, dis-
]jlaying His own body incorruptible, as first-
fruits of the resurrection of all. 3. And do not
be surprised if we frequently ^ repeat the same
words on the same subject. For since we are
speaking of the counsel of God, therefore we
expound the same sense in more than one
form, lest we should seem to be leaving any-
thing out, and incur the charge of inadequate
treatment : for it is better to submit to the
blame of repetition than to leave out anything
that ought to be set down. 4. The body, then,
-as sharing the same nature with all, for it was
a human body, though by an unparalleled
miracle it was formed of a virgin only, yet be-
ing mortal, was to die also, conformably to its
peers. But by virtue of the union of the Word
with it, it was no longer subject to corruption
according to its own nature, but by reason of
the Word that was come to dwell 7 in it it was
placed out of the reach of corruption. 5. And
so it was that two marvels came to pass at
once, that the death of all was accomplished
in the Lord's body, and that death and cor-
ruption were wholly done away by reason of
the Word that was united with it. For there
was need of death, and death must needs be
suffered on behalf of all, that the debt owing
from all might be paid. 6. Whence, as I said
before, the Word, since it was not possible for
Him to die, as He was immortal, took to Him-
self a body such as could die, that He might
4 avTo^ari, see c. Gent. 40, 46, and Orat. iv. 2, note 4.
5 See especially § 7.
6 e.g-. viii. 4 ; x. 5, &c. ' It is quite a peculiarity of Ath. to
repeat, and to apologise for doing so,' (Newman in Orat. ii. 80,
note i).
7 iTri^a(TL<;, compare imfiaCveiv, 43. 4, &c.
offer it as His own in the stead of all, and as
suffering, through His union 7 with it, on behalf
of all, " Bring ^ to nought Him that had the
power of death, that is the devil ; and might
deliver them who through fear of death were
all their lifetime subject to bondage."
§21. Death brought to nought by the death of
Christ. Why then did not Christ die pri-
vately, or in a more honourable way ? He
was not subject to natural death, but had to
die at the hands of others. Why then did He
die 'I Nay but for that purpose He came, and
but for that, He could not have risen.
Why, now that the common Saviour of all
has died on our behalf, we, the faithful in
Christ, no longer die the death as before,
agreeably tO the warning of the law ; for this
condemnation has ceased ; but, corruption
ceasing and being put away by the grace of the
Resurrection, henceforth we are only dissolved,
agreeably to our bodies' mortal nature, at the
time God has fixed for each, that we may be
able to gain a better resurrection. 2. For
like the seeds which are cast into the earth,
we do not perish by dissolution, but sown in
the earth, shall rise again, death having been
brought to nought by the grace of the Saviour.
Hence it is that blessed Paul, who was made
a surety of the Resurrection to all, says : " This
corruptible 9 must put on incorruption, and
this mortal must put on immortality; but
when this corruptible shall have put on incor-
ruption, and this mortal shall have put on im-
mortality, then shall be brought to pass the
saying that is written, Death is swallowed
up in victory. O death where is thy sting?
O grave where is thy victory ?" 3. Why, then,
one might say, if it were necessary for Him
to yield up His body to death in the stead
of all, did He not lay it aside as man pri-
vately, instead of going as far as even to be
crucified? For it were more fitting for Him
to have laid His body aside honourably, than
ignominiously to endure a death like this.
4. Now, see to it, I reply, whether such an
objection be not merely human, whereas what
the Saviour did is truly divine and for many
reasons worthy of His Godhead. Firstly, be-
cause the death which befalls men comes to
them agreeably to the weakness of their nature;
for, unable to continue in one stay, they are
dissolved with time. Hence, too, diseases be-
fall them, and they fall sick and die. But the
Lord is not weak, but is the Power of God and
Word of God and Very Life. 5. If, then. He
had laid aside His body somewhere in private,
7 e7rtj3acri.s, compare cTrilSaiVeiv, 43. 4, &C.
8 Cf. 10. 4, above. 9 i Cor. xv. 53, sqq.
48
DE INCARNATIONE VERBI DEI.
and upon a bed, after the manner of men, it
would have been thought that He also did this
agreeably to the weakness of His nature, and
because there was nothing in him more than in
other men. But since He was, firstly, the Life
and the Word of God, and it was necessary,
secondly, for the death on behalf of all to be
accomplished, for this cause, on the one hand,
because He was life and power, the body
gained strength in Him ; 6. while on the other,
as death must needs come to pass, He did not
Himself take, but received at others' hands,
the occasion of perfecting His sacrifice. Since
it was not fit, either, that the Lord should fall
sick, who healed the diseases of others ; nor
again was it right for that body to lose its
strength, in which He gives strength to the
weaknesses of others also. 7. Why, then, did
He not prevent death, as He did sickness?
Because it was for this that He had the body,
and it was unfitting to prevent it, lest the
Resurrection also should be hindered, while
yet it was equally unfitting for sickness to pre-
cede His death, lest it should be thought weak-
ness on the part of Him that was in the body.
Did He not then hunger ? Yes ; He hun-
gered, agreeably to the properties of His body.
But He did not perish of hunger, because of
the Lord that wore it. Hence, even if He died
to ransom all, yet He saw not corruption. For
[His body] rose again in perfect soundness,
since the body belonged to none other, but to
the very Life.
§ 22. But why did He not withdraw His body
from the Jews, and so guard its immortality 1
{}) It became Him not to i?i/iict death on
Hitnself, and yet not to shun it. (2) He came
to receive death as the due of others^ therefore
it should come to Him from without. (3) His
death must be certain, to guarantee the truth
of His Resurrection. Also, He could not die
from infirmity, lest He should be mocked in
His healing of others.
But it were better, one might say, to have
hidden from the designs of the Jews, that He
might guard His body altogether from death.
Now let such an one be told that this too was
unbefitting the Lord. For as it was not fitting
for the Word of God, being the Life, to inflict
death Himself on His own body, so neither
was it suitable to fly from death offered by
others, but rather to follow it up unto destruc-
tion, for which reason He naturally neither
laid aside His body of His own accord, nor,
again, fled from the Jews when they took
counsel against Him. 2. But this did not shew
weakness on the Word's part, but, on the con-
trary, shewed Him to be Saviour and Life ; in
that He both awaited death to destroy it, and
hasted to accomplish the death offered Him
for the salvation of all. 3. And besides, the
Saviour came to accomplish not His own
death, but the death of men ; whence He did
not lay aside His body by a death of His own ^
— for He was Life and had none — but received
that death which came from men, in order per-
fectly to do away with this when it met Him in
His own body. 4. Again, from the following
also one might see the reasonableness of the
Lord's body meeting this end. The Lord was
especially concerned for the resurrection of the
body which He was set to accomplish. For
what He was to do was to manifest it as
a monument of victory over death, and to
assure all of His having effected the blotting
out of corruption, and of the incorruption of
their bodies from thenceforward ; as a gage of
which and a proof of the resurrection in store
for all, He has preserved His own body in-
corrupt. 5. If, then, once more. His body had
fallen sick, and the word had been sundered
from it in the sight of all, it would have been
unbecoming that He who healed the diseases
of others should suffer His own instrument
to waste in sickness. For how could His
driving out the diseases of others have been
believed^ in if His own temple fell sick in
Him 3? For either He had been mocked as
unable to drive away diseases, or if He could,
but did not, He would be thought insensible
toward others also.
§ 23. Necessity of a public death for the doctrine
of the Resurrection.
But even if, without any disease and without
any pain. He had hidden His body away privily
and by Himself "in'f a corner," or in a desert
place, or in a house, or anywhere, and after-
wards suddenly appeared and said that He had
been raised from the dead. He would have
seemed on all hands to be telling idle tales s,
and what He said about the Resurrection
would have been all the more discredited, as
there was no one at all to witness to His
death. Now, death must precede resurrection,
as it would be no resurrection did not death
precede ; so that if the death of His body had
taken place anywhere in secret, the death not
being apparent nor taking place before wit-
nesses. His Resurrection too had been hidden
and without evidence. 2. Or why, while when
He had risen He proclaimed the Resurrection,
should He cause His death to take place in
secret? or why, while He drove out evil
spirits in the presence of all, and made the
man blind from his birth recover his sight,
I Cf. Job. X. 17, 18. _ 2 Cf. Matt, xxvii. 42.
3 i.e. wiien sustained by its union with Him.
4 Acts xxvL 26. 5 Luke xxiv. it.
INCARNATION OF THE WORD.
49
and changed the water into wine, that by these
means He might be beh'eved to be the Word
of God, should He not manifest His mortal
nature as incorruptible in the presence of all,
that He might be believed Himself to be the
Life? 3. Or how were His disciples to have
boldness in speaking of the Resurrection, were
they not able to say that He first died ? Or
how could they be believed, saying that death
had fiist taken place and then the Resurrec-
tion, had they not had as witnesses of His death
the men before whom they spoke with bold-
ness? For if, even as it was, when His death
and Resurrection had taken place in the sight
of all, the Pharisees of that day would not
believe, but compelled even those who had
seen the Resurrection to deny it, why, surely,
if these things had happened in secret, how
many pretexts for disbelief would they have
devised ? 4. Or how could the end of death,
and the victory over it be proved, unless
challenging it before the eyes of all He had
shewn it to be dead, annulled for the future
by the incorruption of His body ?
§ 24. Furthei- objections anticipated. He did
not choose His manner of death ; for He was
to prove Conqueror of death in all or any
of its forms: {simile of a good ivrestler).
The death chosen to disgrace Him proved the
Trophy against death : moreover it preserved
His body undivided.
But what others also might have said, we
must anticipate in reply. For perhaps a man
might say even as follows : If it was necessary
for His death to take place before all, and with
witnesses, that the story of His Resurrection
also might be believed, it would have been
belter at any rate for Him to have devised
for Himself a glorious death, if only to escape
the ignominy of the Cross. 2. But had He
done even this. He would give ground for
suspicion against Himself, that He was not
powerful against every death, but only against
the death devised for^ Him; and so again
there would have been a pretext for disbelief
about the Resurrection all tlie same. So death
came to His body, not from Himself, but from
hostile counsels, in order that whatever death
they offered to the Saviour, this He might
utterly do away. 3. And just as a noble
wrestler, great in skill and courage, does not
pick out his antagonists for himself, lest he
should raise a suspicion of hio being afraid of
some of them, but puts it in the choice of the
onlookers, and especially so if they happen to
be his enemies, so that against whomsoever
6 i.e. suggested as evSo^of {supra, l) ; a reading Trap' eavToO has
been suggeslcd : (devised) " by liirnself."
VOL. IV. P
they match him, him he may throw, and be
believed superior to them all ; so also the Life
of all, our Lord and Saviour, even Christ, did
not devise a death for His own body, so as not
to appear to be fearing some other death ; but
He accepted on the Cross, and endured, a
death inflicted by others, and above all by
His enemies, which they thought dreadful and
ignominious and not to be faced ; so that this
also being destroyed, both He Himself might
be believed to be the Life, and the power of
death be brought utterly to nought. 4. So
something surprising and startling has hap-
pened ; for the death, which they thought to
inflict as a disgrace, was actually a monument
of victory against death itself. Whence neither
did He suffer the death of John, his head
being severed, nor, as Esaias, was He sawn
in sunder ; in order that even in death He
might still keep His body undivided and in
perfect soundness, and no pretext be afforded
to those that would divide the Church.
§25. Why the Cross, of all deaths ? ( i) He had
to bear the curse for us. (2) On it He held
out His hajids to unite all, Jews and Gefitiles,
in Himself. (3) He defeated the '■'^ Prince of
the powers of the air'' in his own region,
clearing the way to heaven atid openifig for
us the everlastifig doors.
And thus much in reply to those without
who pile up arguments for themselves. But
if any of our own people also inquire, not
from love of debate, but from love of learning,
why He suffered death in none other way save
on the Cross, let him also be told that no
other v/ay than this was good for us, and that
it was well that the Lord suffered this for our
sakes. 2. For if He came Himself to bear
the curse laid upon us, how else could He
have " become 7 a curse," unless He received
the death set for a curse? and that is the
Cross. For this is exactly what is written :
" Cursed^ is he that hangeth on a tree."
3. Again, if the Lord's death is the ransom of
all, and by His death "the middle^ wall of par-
tition " is broken down, and the calling of the
nations is brought about, how would He have
called us to Him, had He not been crucified?
For it is only on the cross that a man dies
with his hands spread out. Whence it was
fitting for the Lord to bear this also and to
spread out His hands, that with the one He
might draw the ancient people, and with the
other those from the Gentiles, and unite both
in Himself. 4. For this is what He Himself
has said, signifying by what manner of death
7 Gal. iii. 13.
B Deut. xxL 23.
9 Eph. ii. 14.
so
DE INCARNATIONE VERBI DEI.
He was to ransom all : " I, when' I am lifted
up," He saith, "shall draw all men unto Me."
5. And once more, if the devil, the enemy
of our race, having fallen from heaven, wanders
about our lower atmosphere, and there bearing
rule over his fellow-spirits, as his peers in dis-
obedience, not only works illusions by their
means in them that are deceived, but tries to
hinder them that are going up (and about this""
the Apostle says : "According to the prince of
the power of the air, of the spirit that now
worketh in the sons of disobedience") ; while
the Lord came to cast down the devil, and clear
the air and prepare the way for us up into
heaven, as said the Apostle: "Throughs the
veil, that is to say. His flesh" — and this must
needs be by death — well, by what other kind
of death could this have come to pass, than
by one which took place in the air, I mean
the cross ? for only he that is perfected on the
cross dies in the air. Whence it was quite
fitting that the Lord suffered this death.
6. For thus being lifted up He cleared the
air + of the malignity both of the devil and of
demons of all kinds, as He says: "I behelds
Satan as lightning fall from heaven ■" and made
a new opening of the way up into heaven,
as He says once more : " Lift^ up your gates,
O ye princes, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting
doors." For it was not the Word Himself
that needed an opening of the gates, being
Lord of all ; nor were any of His works closed
to their Maker ; but we it was that needed it,
whom He carried up by His own body. For
as He offered it to death on behalf of all,
so by it He once more made ready the way
up into the heavens.
§ 26. Reasons for His rising on the Third Day.
(i) Not sooner^ for else His real death would
be denied, nor (2.) later ; to (a) guard the
identity of His body, (b) not to keep His
disciples too lotig in suspense, nor {c) to wait
till the witnesses of His death were dispersed,
or its memory faded.
The death on the Cross, then, for us has
proved seemly and fitting, and its cause has
been shewn to be reasonable in every respect ;
and it may justly be argued that in no other
way than by the Cross was it right for the
salvation of all to take place. For not even
thus — not even on the Cross — did He leave
Himself concealed ; but far otherwise, while
He made creation witness to the presence of
its Maker, He suffered not the temple of His
' John xii. 32.
* Eph. ii. 2, and see the curious visions of Antony, Vit. Ant.,
65, 66. 3 Heb. X. 20.
4 Cf. Lightfoot on Coloss. ii. 15, also the fragment oi Letter 22.
and Letter 60. 7.
5 I.UC X. 18. 6 Ps. xxiv. 7, LXX.
body to remain long, but having merely shewn
it to be dead, by the contact of death with it,
He straightway raised it up on the third day,
bearing away, as the mark of victory and the
triumph over death, the incorruptibility and
impassibihty which resulted to His body. 2.
For He could, even immediately on death,
have raised His body and shewn it alive ; but
this also the Saviour, in wise foresight, did not
do. For one might have said that He had
not died at all, or that death had not come
into perfect contact with Him, if He had mani-
fested the Resurrection at once. 3. .Perhaps,
again, had the interval of His dying and rising
again been one of two days 7 only, the glory
of His incorruption would have been obscure.
So in order that the body might be proved
to be dead, the Word tarried yet one inter-
mediate day, and on the third shewed it
incorruptible to all. 4. So then, that the
death on the Cross might be proved. He
raised His body on the third day. 5. But lest,
by raising it up when it had remained a long
time and been completely corrupted, He
should be disbelieved, as though He had
exchanged it for some other body — for a man
might also from lapse of time distrust what
he saw, and forget what had taken place —
for this cause He waited not more than three
days ; nor did He keep long in suspense those
whom He had told about the Resurrection ;
6. but while the word was still echoing in
their ears and their eyes were still expectant
and their mind in suspense, and while those
who had slain Him were still living on earth,
and were on the spot and could witness to
the death of the Lord's body, the Son of God
Himself, after an interval of three days, shewed
His body, once dead, immortal and incor-
ruptible ; and it was made manifest to ali
that it was not from any natural weakness of
the Word that dwelt in it that the body had
died, but m order that in it death might be
done away by the power of the Saviour.
§27. The change wrought by the Cross in the
relation of Death to Man.
For that death is destroyed, and that the
Cross is become the victory over it, and that
it has no more power but is verily dead,
this is no small proof, or rather an evident
warrant, that it is despised by all Christ's
disciples, and that they all take the aggressive
against it and no longer fear it; but by the
sign of the Cross and by faith in Christ tread
7 Literally 'at an e\en' [distajice], as contrasted with (a) the
same day (2, above), (b) the third day {iv rpiraCw SiaarrinaTi,
(6, below), ev i<Ta> must therefore be equivalent in sense to Sevn-
paiov. Possibly the literal sense is ' [had the Resurrection taken
place] at an equal interval between the Death and the [actual day
of] the Resurrection.'
INCARNATION OF THE WORD.
51
I
it down as dead. 2. For of old, before the
divine sojourn of the Saviour took place, even
to the saints death was terrible ^, and all wept
for the dead as though they perished. But
now that the Saviour has raised His body,
death is no longer terrible ; for all who believe
in Christ tread him under as nought, and
choose rather to die than to deny their faith
in Christ. For they verily know that when
they die they are not destroyed, but actually
[begin to] live, and become incorruptible
through the Resurrection. 3. And that devil
tliat once maliciously exulted in death, now
that its 9 pains were loosed, remained the only
one truly dead. And a proof of this is, that
before men believe Christ, they see in death
an object of terror, and play the coward before
him. But when they are gone over to Christ's
faith and teaching, their contempt for death
is so great that they even eagerly rush upon
it, and become witnesses for the Resurrection
the Saviour has accomplished against it. For
while still tender in years they make haste to
die, and not men only, but women also,
exercise themselves by bodil)'' discipline against
it. So weak has he become, that even women
who were formerly deceived by him, now
mock at him as dead and paralyzed. 4. For
as when a tyrant has been defeated by a real
king, and bound hand and foot, then all that
pass by laugh him to scorn, buffeting and
reviling him, no longer fearing his fury and
barbarit}', because of the king who has con-
quered him ; so also, death having been
conqut^red and exposed by the Saviour on the
Cross, and bound hand and foot, all they who
are in Christ, as they pass by, trample on him,
and v/itnessing to Christ scoff at death, jesting
at him, and saying what has been written
against him of old : *' O death ^, where is thy
victory 1 O grave, where is thy sting."
^28. T/n's exceptio7ial fact must be tested by
experience. Let those who doubt it become
Christians.
Is this, then, a slight proof of the weakness
of death ? or is it a slight demonstration of
the victory won over him by the Saviour, when
the youths and young maidens that are in
Christ despise this Hfe and practise to die ?
2. For man is by nature afraid of death and
of the dissolution of the body _; but there is
this most startling fact, that he who has put
on the faith of the Cross despises even what
is naturally fearful, and for Christ's sake is not
afraid of death. 3. And just as, whereas fire
has the natural property of burning, if some
* Cf. Ps. Iv. 4, Ixxxix. 47 ; Job. xviii. 14. 9 Cf. Acts. iL 24.
' Cf. above, 21. 2.
one said there was a substance which did not
fear its burning, but on the contrary proved
it weak — as the asbestos among the Indians
is said to do — then one who did not believe
the story, if he wished to put it to the test,
is at any rate, after putting on the fireproof
material and touching the fire, thereupon
assured of the weakness attributed ^ to the
fire : 4. or if any one wished to see the tyrant
bound, at any rate by going into the country
and domain of his conqueror he may see the
man, a terror to others, reduced to weakness ;
so if a man is incredulous even still after so
many proofs and after so many who have
become martyrs in Christ, and after the scorn
shewn for death every day by those who are
illustrious in Christ, still, if his mind be even
yet doubtful as to whether death has been
brought to nought and had an end, he does
well to wonder at so great a thing, only let
him not prove obstinate in increduhty, nor
case-hardened in the face of what is so plain.
5. But just as he who has got the asbestos
knows that fire has no burning power over it,
and as he who would see the tyrant bound
goes over to the empire of his conqueror, so
too let him who is incredulous about the victory
over death receive the faith of Christ, and pass
over to His teaching, and he shall see the
weakness of death, and the triumph over it.
For many who were formerly incredulous and
scoffers have afterwards believed and so
despised death as even to become martyrs
for Christ Himself.
§29. Here then are wonderful effects., and a suffi-
cie?it cause, the Cross, to account for them, as
sunrise accounts for daylight.
Now if by the sign of the Cross, and by
faith in Christ, death is trampled down, it
must be evident before the tribunal of truth
that it is none other than Christ Himself that
has displayed trophies and triumphs over death,
and made him lose all his strength. 2. And
if, while previously death was strong, and for
that reason terrible, now after the sojourn of
the Saviour and the death and Resurrection
of His body it is despised, it must be evident
that death has been brought to nought and
conquered by the very Christ that ascended
the Cross. 3. For as, if after night-time the
sun rises, and the whole region of earth is
illumined by him, it is at any rate not open to
doubt that it is the sun who has revealed his
light everywhere, that has also driven away the
dark and given light to all things; so, now
that death has come into contempt, and been
» KO-rb. Tov TTupos. Kara appears to have the predicative foico
so common in Aristotle. The Bened. translation ' the weakness
of fire against the asbestos' is based on a needless conjecture.
E 2
52
DE INCARNATIONE VERBI DEI.
trodden under foot, from the time when the
Saviour's saving manifestation in the flesh and
His death on the Cross took place, it must be
quite plain that it is the very Saviour that also
appeared in the body. Who has brought death
to nought, and Who displays the signs of victory
over him day by day in His own disciples.
4. For when one sees men, weak by nature,
leaping forward to death, and not fearing its
corruption nor frightened of the descent into
Hades, but with eager soul challenging it ; and
not flinching from torture, but on the contrary,
for Christ's sake electing to rush upon death
in preference to life upon earth, or even if one
be an eye-witness of men and females and
young children rushing and leaping upon death
for the sake of Christ's religion; who is so silly,
or who is so incredulous, or who so maimed in
his mind, as not to see and infer that Christ, to
Whom the people witness, Himself supplies and
gives to each the victory over death, depriving
him of all his power in each one of them that
hold His faith and bear the sign of the Cross.
5. For he that sees the serpent trodden under
foot, especially knowing his former fierceness,
no longer doubts that he is dead and has
quite lost his strength, unless he is perverted
in mind and has not even his bodily senses
sound. For who that sees a lion, either, made
sport of by children, fails to see that he is
either dead or has lost all his power ? 6. Just
as, then, it is possible to see with the eyes the
truth of all this, so, now that death is made
sport of and despised by believers in Christ,
let none any longer doubt, nor any prove
incredulous, of death having been brought to
nought by Christ, and the corruption of death
destroyed and stayed.
§ 30. The reality of the Resurrection proved by
facts: (1) the victory over death described
above : (2) the Wonders of Grace are the work
of one Livings of One ivho is God: (3) if the
gods be {as alleged) real and living, a fortiori
He Who shatters their power is alive.
What we have so far said, then, is no small
proof that death has been brought to nought,
and that the Cross of the Lord is a sign of vic-
tory over him. But of the Resurrection of the
body to immortality thereupon accomplished
by Christ, the common Saviour and true Life
of all, the demonstration by facts is clearer
than arguments to those whose mental vision
is sound. 2. For if, as our argument shewed,
death has been brought to nought, and because
of Christ all tread him under foot, much more
did He Himself first tread him down with His
own body, and bring him to nought. But
supposing death slain by Him, what could
have happened save the rising again of His
body, and its being displayed as a monument
of victory against death ? or how could death
have been shewn to be brought to nought
unless the Lord's body had risen ? But if this
demonstration of the Resurrection seem to
any one insufficient, let him be assured of what
is said even from what takes place before his
eyes. 3. For whereas on a man's decease he
can put forth no power, but his influence
lasts to the grave and thenceforth ceases ;
and actions, and power over men, belong to
the living only ; let him who will, see and
be judge, confessing the truth from what ap-
pears to sight. 4. For now that the Saviour
works so great things among men, and day
by day is invisibly persuading so great a multi-
tude from every side, both from them that
dwell in Greece and in foreign lands, to come
over to His faith, and all to obey His teaching,
will any one still hold his mind in doubt whe-
ther a Resurrection has been accomplished
by the Saviour, and whether Christ is alive,
or rather is Himself the Life? 5. Or is
it like a dead man to be pricking the con-
sciences of men, so that they deny their
hereditary laws and bow before the teaching
of Christ? Or how, if he is no longer active
(for this is proper to one dead), does, he stay
from their activity those who are active and
alive, so that the adulterer no longer com-
mits adultery, and the murderer murders no
more, nor is the inflicter of wrong any longer
grasping, and the profane is henceforth re-
ligious? Or how, if He be not risen but is
dead, does He drive away, and pursue, and
cast down those false gods said by the un-
believers to be alive, and the demons they
worship ? 6. For where Christ is named, and
His faith, there all idolatry is deposed and all
imposture of evil spirits is exposed, and any
spirit is unable to endure even the name, nay
even on barely hearing it flies and disappears.
But this work is not that of one dead, but of
one that lives — and especially of God. 7. In
particular, it would be ridiculous to say that
while the spirits cast out by Him and the idols
brought to nought are alive, He who chases
them away, and by His power prevents their
even appearing, yea, and is being confessed by
them all to be Son of God, is dead.
§31. If Power is the sign of life, what do we
learn from the impotence of idols, for good or
evil, and the constrainiiig potver of Christ
and of the Sign of the Cross ? Death and the
demons are by this proved to have lost their
sovereignty. Coincidence of the above argument
from facts with that from the Personality of
Christ.
But they who disbeheve in the Resurrection
INCARNATION OF THE WORD.
53
afford a strong proof against themselves, if
instead of all the spirits and the gods wor-
shipped by them casting out Christ, Who, they
say, is dead, Christ on the contrary pro/es
them all to be dead. 2. For if it be true that
one dead can exert no power, while the Saviour
does daily so many works, drawing men to
religion, persuading to virtue, teaching of
immortality, leading on to a desire for heavenly
things, revealing the knowledge of the Father,
inspiring strength to meet death, shewing Him-
self to each one, and displacing the godlessness
of idolatry, and the gods and spirits of the
unbelievers can do -none of these things, but
rather shew themselves dead at the presence
of Christ, their pomp being reduced to im-
potence and vanity ; whereas by the sign of
the Cross all magic is . stopped, and all witch-
craft brought to nought, and all the idols are
being deserted and left, and every unruly
pleasure is checked, and every one is looking
up from earth to heaven : Whom is one to
pronounce dead? Christ, that is doing so
many works? But to work is not proper to
one dead. Or him that exerts no power at
all, but lies as it were without life ? which is
essentially proper to the idols and spirits, dead
iis they are. 3. For the Son of God is 3 " living
and active," and works day by day, and brings
about the salvation of all. But death is daily
proved to have lost all his power, and idols
and spirits are proved to be dead rather than
Christ, so that henceforth no man can any
longer doubt of the Resurrection of His body.
4. But he who is incredulous of the Resur-
rection of the Lord's body would seem to be
ignorant of the power of the Word and Wisdom
of God. For if He took a body to Himself at
all, and — in reasonable consistency, as our
argument shewed — appropriated it as His own,
what was the Lord to do with it? or what
should be the end of the body when the Word
had once descended upon it? For it could
not but die, inasmuch as it was mortal, and
to be offered unto death on behalf of all : for
which purpose it was that the Saviour fashioned
it for Himself. But it was impossible for it to
remain dead, because it had been made the
temple of life. Whence, while it died as
mortal, it came to life again by reason of the
] Jfe in it ; and of its Resurrection the works
are a sign.
^32. But who is to see Him risen, so as to
believe 1 Nay, God is ever invisible and known
by His works only : and here the works cry
out in proof. If you do not believe, look at
3 Heb. iv. 12.
those who do, and perceive the Godliead of
Christ. The de7nons see this, though men be
blind. Sumtnary of the argument so far.
But if, because He is not seen, His having
risen at all is disbelieved, it is high time for
those who refuse belief to deny the very course
of Nature. For it is God's peculiar property at
once to be invisible and yet to be known from
His works, as has been already stated above.
2. If, then, the works are not there, they do
well to disbelieve what does not appear. But
if the works cry aloud and shew it clearly,
why do they choose to deny the life so mani-
festly due to the Resurrection ? For even if
they be maimed in their intelligence, yet even
with the external senses men may see the
unimpeachable power and Godhead of Christ.
3. For even a blind man, if he see not the
sun, yet if he but take hold of the warmth
the sun gives out, knows that there is a sun
above the earth. Thus let our opponents also,
even if they believe not as yet, being still blind
to the truth, yet at least knowing His power by
others who believe, not deny the Godhead of
Christ and the Resurrection accomplished by
Him. 4. For it is plain that if Christ be dead,
He could not be expelling demons and spoiling
idols ; for a dead man the spirits would not have
obeyed. But if they be manifestly expelled by
the naming of His name, it must be evident
that He is not dead ; especially as spirits, see-
ing even what is unseen by men, could tell if
Christ were dead and refuse Him any obedi-
ence at all. 5. But as it is, what irreligious men
believe not, the spirits see — that He is God, —
and hence they fly and fall at His feet, saying
just what they uttered when He was in the
body : " We + know Thee Who Thou art, the
Holy One of God;" and, "Ah, what have
we to do \yith Thee, Thou Son of God?
I pray Thee, torment me not." 6. As then
demons confess Him, and His works bear
Him witness day by day, it must be evident,
and let none brazen it out against the truth,
both that the Saviour raised His own body, and
that He is the true Son of God, being from
Him, as from His Father, His own Word, and
Wisdom, and Power, Who in ages later took
a body for the salvation of all, and taught the
world concerning the Father, and brought
death to nought, and bestowed incorrupdon
upon ail by the promise of the Resurrection,
having raised His own body as a first-fruits of
this, and having displayed it by the sign of the
Cross as a monument of viclory over dcatli
and its corruption.
4 Cf. Luc. iv. 34, and Marc. v. 7.
54
DE INCARNATIONE VERBI DEI.
ij 33. UNBELIEF OF JEWS AND
SCOFFING OF GREEKS. THE
FORMER confounded by their own Scrip-
tu7-es. Prophecies of His coining as God and
as Man.
These things being so, and the Resurrection
of His body and the victory gained over death
by the Saviour being clearly proved, come now,
let us put to rebuke both the disbelief of the
Jews and the scoffing of the Gentiles. 2. For
these, perhaps, are the points where Jews ex-
press incredulity, while Gentiles laugh, finding
fault with the unseemliness of the Cross, and of
the Word of God becoming man. But our
argument shall not delay to grapple with both,
especially as the proofs at our command against
them are clear as day. 3. For Jews in their in-
credulity may be refuted from the Scriptures,
which even themselves read ; for this text and
tliat, and, in a word, the whole inspired Scrip-
ture, cries aloud concerning these things, as
even its express words abundantly shew. For
prophets proclaimed beforehand concerning
the wonder of the Virgin and the birth from
her, sa)ing : " Lo, the s Virgin shall be with
child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they
shall call his name Emmanuel, which is,
being interpreted, God with us." 4. But
Moses, the truly great, and whom they believe
to speak truth, with reference to the Saviour's
becoming man, having estimated what was said
as important, and assured of its truth, set it
down in these words : " There ^ shall rise a star
out of Jacob, and a man out of Israel, and he
shall break in pieces the captains of Moab."
And again : " How lovely are thy habitations
O Jacob, thy tabernacles O Israel, as shadow-
ing gardens, and as parks by the rivers, and
as tabernacles which the Lord hath fixed, as
cedars by the waters. A man shall come
forth out of his seed, and shall be Lord over
many peoples." And again, Esaias : "Before 7
the Child know how to call father or mother,
he shall take the power of Damascus and the
spoils of Samaria before the king of Assyria.''
5. That a man, then, shall appear is foretold
in those words. But that He that is to come
is Lord of all, they predict once more as fol-
lows : " Behold^ the Lord sitteth upon a light
cloud, and shall come into Egypt, and the
graven images of Egypt shall be shaken."
For from thence also it is that the Father calls
Him back, saying : " I called 9 My Son out
of Egypt."
§ 34. Fiophecies of His passion and death in all
its circumstances.
Nor is even His death passed over in silence :-
S Matt. i. 23 ; Isa. vii. 14. ^ Num. xxiv. 5 — 17.
7 Isa. viii. 4. ® Isa. xix. i. 9 lios. xi. i.
on the contrary, it is referred to in the divine
Scriptures, even exceeding clearly. For to the
end that none should err for want of instruction
in the actual events, they feared not to mention
even the cause of His death, — that He suffers
it not for His own sake, but for the immortality
and salvation of all, and the counsels of the
Jews against Him and the indignities offered
Him at their hands. 2. They say then : "A
man ^ in stripes, and knowing how to bear
weakness, for his face is turned away : he
was dishonoured and held in no account.
He beareth our sins, and is in pain on our
account ; and we reckoned him to be in
labour, and in stripes, and in ill-usage ; but
he was wounded for our sins, and made
weak for our wickedness. The chastisement
of our peace was upon him, and by his
stripes we were healed." O marvel at the
lovmg-kindness of the Word, that for our
sakes He is dishonoured, that we may be
brought to honour. "For all we," it says,
" like sheep were gone astray ; man had erred
in his way ; and the Lord delivered him for our
sins ; and he openeth not his mouth, because
he hath been evilly intreated. As a sheep
was he brought to the slaughter, and as a lamb
dumb before his shearer, so openeth he not
his mouth : in his abasement his judgment was
taken away"." 3. Then lest any should from
His suffering conceive Him to be a common
man, Holy Writ anticipates the surmises of
man, and declares the power (which worked)
for Him 3, and the difference of His nature
compared with ourselves, saying : " But who
shall declare his generation? For his life is
taken away ^ from the earth. From the wicked-
ness of the people was he brought to death.
And I will give the wicked instead of his burial,
and the rich instead of his death ; for he did
no wickedness, neither was guile found in his
mouth. And the Lord will cleanse him from,
his stripes."
§35, Prophecies of the Cross. How these prophe-
cies are satisfied in Christ alone.
But, perhaps, having heard the prophecy of
His death, you ask to learn also what is set
forth concerning the Cross. For not even this
is passed over : it is displayed by the holy men
with great plainness. 2. For first Moses pre-
dicts it, and that with a loud voice, when he
I Isa. liii. 3, sqq. " Or, " exalted."
3 Ti\v vntp avToii Svi/a/xiv. The Ben. version simplifies this diflS-
cult expression by ignoring the v-mp. Mr. E. N. Bennett has
suggested to me that the true reading may be v-n(pa.v\ov for l-nip
ainov (aiiAos supra 8. i, vnepoiiAios in Pbilo). I would add the
suggestion that avrov stood after v-ntpaiikov, and that the simi-
larity of the five letters in MS. caused the second word to be
dropped out. ' //?> exceeding immaterial power ' would be the
resulting sense. (See Class. Review, 1890, No. iv. p. 182.)
INCARNATION OF THE WORD.
55
says : "Ye shall seC your Life hanging before
your eyes, and shall not believe." 3. And
next, the prophets after him witness of this,
saying : " But s I as an innocent Iamb brought
to be slain, knew it not ; they counselled an
evil counsel against me, saying, Hither and
let us cast a tree upon his ^ bread, and efface
him from the land of the living." 4. And
again : " They pierced ^ my hands and my feet,
they numbered all my bones, they parted my
garments among them, and for my vesture
they cast lots." 5. Now a death raised aloft,
and that takes place on a tree, could be none
other than the Cross : and again, in no other
death are the hands and feet pierced, save on
the Cross only. 6. But since by the sojourn of
the Saviour among men all nations also on
every side began to know God ; they did not
leave this point, either, without a reference :
but mention is made of this matter as well in
the Holy Scriptures. For " there ^ shall be,"
he saith, " the root of Jesse, and he that riseth
to rule the nations, on him shall the nations
hope." This then is a little in proof of what
has happened. 7. But all Scripture teems
with refutations of the disbelief of the Jews.
For which of the righteous men and holy
prophets, and patriarchs, recorded in the divine
Scriptures, ever had his corporal birth of a
virgin only ? Or what woman has sufficed
without man for the conception of human
kind ? Was not Abel born of Adam, Enoch of
Jared, Noe of Lamech, and Abraham of Tharra,
Isaac of x\braham, Jacob of Isaac ? Was not
Judas born of Jacob, and Moses and Aaron of
Ameram ? Was not Samuel bora of Elkana,
Avas not David of Jesse, was not Solomon of
David, was not Ezechias of Achaz, was not
Josias of Amos, was not Esaias of Amos, was
not Jeremy of Chelchias, was not Ezechiel of
Buzi ? Had not each a father as author of his
existence? Who then is he that is born of
a virgin only ? For the prophet made exceed-
ing much of this sign. 8. Or whose birth did
a star in the skies forerun, to announce to the
world him that was born ? For when Moses
was born, he was hid by his parents : David
was not heard of, even by those of his neigh-
bourhood, inasmuch as even the great Samuel
knew him not, but asked, had Jesse yet another
son ? Abraham again became known to his
neighbours as? a great man only subsequently to
his birth. But of Christ's birth the witness was
4 Deut xxviii. 66, see Orat. ii. i6, note i. S Jer. xi. ig.
6 Properly "let us destroy the tree with its bread" {ji.e. fruit).
The LXX. translate bi^lahniO ^ upon his bread,' which is possible
in itself ; but they either mistook the verb, or followed some wrong
reading. Their rendering is followed by all the Latin versions.
For a comment on the latter see Tertull. adv. Marc. iii. 19, iv. 40.
7 Ps. xxii. 16, sgq. ** Isa. xi. 10.
9 Or 'only after he had grown great,' i.e. to man's estate.
not man, but a star in that heaven whence He
was descending.
§ 36. Prophecies of Chrisfs sovereignty, flight
itito Egypt, &=€.
But what king that ever was, before he had
strength to call father or mother, reigned and
gained triumphs over his enemies '° ? Did not
David come to the throne at thirty years of
age, and Solomon, when he had grown to be
a young man ? Did not Joas enter on the
kingdom when seven years old, and Josias,
a still later king, receive the government about
the seventh year of his age ? And yet they
at that age had strength to call father or
mother. 2. Who, then, is there that was
reigning and spoiling his enemies almost
before his birth ? Or what king of this sort
has ever been in Israel and in Juda — let the
Jews, who have searched out the matter, tell
us — in whom all the nations have placed their
hopes and had peace, instead of being at
enmity with them on every side? 3. For as
long as Jerusalem stood there was war without
respite betwixt them, and they all fought with
Israel ; the Assyrians oppressed them, the
Egyptians persecuted them, the Babylonians
fell upon them ; and, strange to say, they had
even the Syrians their neighbours at war
against them. Or did not David war against
them of Moab, and smite the Syrians, Josias
guard against his neighbours, and Ezechias
quail at the boasting of Senacherim, and
Amalek make war against Moses, and the
Amorites oppose him, and the inhabitants of
Jericho array themselves against Jesus son of
Naue ? And, in a word, treaties of friendship
had no place between the nations and Israel.
Who, then, it is on whom the nations are to
set their hope, it is worth while to see. For
there must be such an one, as it is impossible
for the prophet to have spoken falsely. 4. But
which of the holy prophets or of the early
patriarchs has died on the Cross for the salva-
tion of all? Or who was wounded and destroyed
for the healing of all? Or which of the righteous
men, or kings, went down to Egypt, so that at
his coming the idols of Egypt fell ^ ? For Abra-
ham went thither, but idolatry prevailed uni-
versally all the same. Moses was born there,
and the deluded worship of the people was
there none the less.
§37. Psalm xxii. 16, &c. Majesty of His birth
a7id deatJi. Confusion of oracles and demons
m Egypt.
Or who among those recorded in Scripture
was pierced in the hands and feet, or hung
'0 Isa. viii. 4, where note LXX.
« Cf. Letter dx.^.
56
DE INCARNATIONE VERBI DEI.
at all upon a tree, and was sacrificed on a
cross for the salvation of all ? For Abraham
died, ending his life on a bed ; Isaac and Jacob
also died with their feet raised on a bed ; Moses
and Aaron died on the mountain ; David in
his house, without being the object of any
conspiracy at the hands of the people ; true,
he was pursued by Saul, but he was preserved
unhurt. Esaias was sawn asunder, but not
hung on a tree. Jeremy was shamefully treated,
but did not die under condemnation; Ezechie'
suffered, not however for the people, but to
indicate what was to come upon the people.
2. Again, these, even where they suffered,
were men resembling all in their common
nature ; but he that is declared in Scripture
to suffer on behalf of all is called not merely
man, but the Life of all, albeit He was in fact
like men in nature. For "ye shall ^ see," it says,
" your Life hanging before your eyes ; " and
" who shall declare his generation ? " For one
can ascertain the genealogy of all the saints,
and declare it from the beginning, and of
whom each was born ; but the generation of
Him that is the Life the Scriptures refer to as
not to be declared. 3. Who then is he of
whom the Divine Scriptures say this ? Or who
is so great that even the prophets predict of
him such great things ? None else, now, is
found in the Scriptures but the common
Saviour of all, the Word of God, our Lord
Jesus Christ. For He it is that proceeded
from a virgin and appeared as man on the
earth, and whose generation after the flesh
cannot be declared. For there is none that
can tell His father after the flesh, His body not
being of a man, but of a virgin alone ; 4. so
that no one can declare the corporal gene-
ration of the Saviour from a man, in the same
way as one can draw up a genealogy of David
and of Moses and of all the patriarchs. For
He it is that caused the star also to mark
the birth of His body ; since it was fit that
the Word, coming down from heaven, should
have His constellation also from heaven, and
it was fitting that the King of Creation when
He came forth should be openly recognized
by all creation. 5. Why, He was born in
Judaea, and men from Persia came to worship
Him. He it is that even before His appearing
in the body won the victory over His demon
adversaries and a triumph over idolatry. All
heathen at any rate from every region, abjuring
their hereditary tradition and the impiety of
idols, are now placing their hope in Christ,
and enrolling themselves under Him, the like
of which you may see with your own eyes.
6. For at no other time has the impiety of the
2 Cf. 35. 2, aud 34. 3.
Egyptians ceased, save when the Lord of all,
riding as it were upon a cloud, came down
there in the body and brought to nought the
delusion of idols, and brought over all to
Himself, and through Himself to the Father.
7. He it is that was crucified before the sun
and all creation as witnesses, and before those
who put Him to death : and by His death has
salvation come to all, and all creation been
ransomed. He is the Life of all, and He it
is that as a sheep yielded His body to death
as a substitute, for the salvation of all, even
though the Jews believe it not.
§38. Other clear prophecies of the coming of God
in the flesh. Christ'' s miracles unprecedented.
For if they do not think these proofs
sufficient, let them be persuaded at any rate
by other reasons, drawn from the oracles they
themselves possess. For of whom do the
prophets say : " I was 3 made manifest to them
that sought me not, I was found of them
that asked not for me : I said Behold, here
am I,, to the nation that had not called upon
my name; I stretched out my hands to a
disobedient and gainsaying people." 2. Who,
then, one might say to the Jews, is he that
was made manifest? For if it is the prophet,
let them say when he was hid, afterward to
appear again. And what manner of prophet
is this, that was not only made manifest from
obscurity, but also stretched out his hands
on the Cross? None surely of the righteous,
save the Word of God only, Who, incorporeal
by nature, appeared for our sakes in the body
and suffered for all. 3. Or if not even this
is sufficient for them, let them at least be
silenced by another proof, seeing how clear
its demonstrative force is. For the Scripture
says: "Be strong'' ye hands that hang down,
and feeble knees ; comfort ye, ye of faint
mind ; be strong, fear not. Behold, our
God recompenseth judgment ; He shall come
and save us. Then shall the eyes of the
blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf
shall hear; then shall the lame man leap as
an hart, and the tongue of the stammerers
shall be plain." 4. Now what can they say
to this, or how can they dare to face this at
all? For the prophecy not only indicates that
God is to sojourn here, but it announces the
signs and the time of His coming. For they
connect the blind recovering their sight, and
the lame walking, and the deaf hearing, and
the tongue of the stammerers being made
plain, with the Divine Coming which is to
take place. Let them say, then, when such
signs have come to pass in Israel, or where
3 Isa. Ixv. I, 2 ; cf. Rom. x. 20, sg. 4 Isa. xxxv. 3, sqq.
INCARNATION OF THE WORD.
57
in Jewry anything of the sort has occurred.
5. Naaman, a leper, was cleansed, but no deaf
man heard nor lame walked. Elias raised a
dead man ; so did Eliseus ; but none blind
from birth regained his sight. For in good
truth, to raise a dead man is a great thing, but
it is not like the wonder wrought by the
Saviour. Only, if Scripture has not passed
over the case of the leper, and of the dead
son of the widow, certainly, had it come to
pass that a lame man also had walked and
a blind man recovered his sight, the narrative
would not have omitted to mention this also.
Since then nothing is said in the Scriptures,
it is evident that these things had never taken
place before. 6. When, then, have they taken
place, save when the Word of God Himself
came in the body ? Or when did He come,
if not when lame men walked, and stammerers
were made to speak plain, and deaf men
heard, and men blind from birth regained
their sight? For this was the very thing the
Jews said who then witnessed it, because they
had not heard of these things having taken
place at any other time : " Since s the world
began it was never heard that any one opened
the eyes of a man born blind. If this man
were not from God, He could do nothing."
§ 39. Do you look for another 1 But Du/iiel
foretells the exact time. Objections to this
rcjiioved.
But perhaps, being unable, even they, to
fight continually against plain facts, they will,
without denying what is written, maintain that
they are looking for these things, and that the
Word of God is not yet come. For this it is
on which they are for ever harping, not
blushing to brazen it out in the face of plain
facts. 2. But on this one point, above all,
they shall be all the more refuted, not at our
hands, but at those of the most wise Daniel,
who marks both the actual date, and the divine
sojourn of the Saviour, saying : " Seventy ^
weeks are cut short upon thy people, and
upon the holy city, for a full end to be made
of sin, and for sins to be sealed up, and
to blot out iniquities, and to make atone-
ment for iniquities, and to bring everlasting
righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet,
and to anoint a Holy of Holies ; and thou
shalt know and understand from the going
forth of the word to restore ? and to build
Jerusalem unto Christ the Prince." 3. Per-
haps with regard to the other (prophecies) they
may be able even to find excuses and to put
off what is written to a future time. But what
S John ix. 32, sq.
7 Lit. "answer.
6 Dan. ix. 24, Sf,
' a misrendering of the Hebrew.
can they say to this, or can they face it at all ?
Where not only is the Christ referred to, but
He that is to be anointed is declared to be
not man simply, but Holy of Holies ; and
Jerusalem is to stand till His coming, and
thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel.
4. David was anointed of old, and Solomon
and Ezechias; but then, nevertheless, Jerusalem
and the place stood, and prophets were pro-
phesying : Gad and Asaph and Nathan ; and,
later, Esaias and Osee and Amos and others.
And again, the actual men that were anointed
were called holy, and not Holy of Holies.
5. But if they shield themselves with the cap-
tivity, and say that because of it Jerusalem was
not, what can they say about the prophets too ?
For in fact when first the people went down
to Babylon, Daniel and Jeremy were there,
and Ezechiel and Aggseus and Zachary were
prophesying.
§ 40. Argument (\)from the withdrawal of pro-
phecy and destruction of Jerusalem, (2) from
the conversion of the Gentiles, and that to the
God of Moses. What more remains for the
Messiah to do, that Christ has not done ?
So the Jews are trifling, and the time in ques-
tion, which they refer to the future, is actually
come. For when did prophet and vision cease
from Israel, save when Christ came, the Holy
of Holies ? For it is a si^^n, and an imporlant
proof, of the coming of the Word of God, tnat
Jerusalem no longer stands, nor is any prophet
raised up nor vision revealed to them, — and
that very naturally. 2. For when He that was
signified was come, what need was there any
longer of any to signify Him ? When the truth
was there, what need any more of the shadow ?
For this was the reason of their prophesying at
all, — namely, till the true Righteousness should
come, and He that was to ransom the sins of all.
And this was why Jerusalem stood till then —
namely, that there they might be exercised in the
types as a preparation for the reality. 3. So
when the Holy of Holies was come, n.aturally
vision and prophecy were sealed and the king-
dom of Jerusalem ceased. For kings were to
be anointed among them only until the Holy
of HoUes should have been anointed; and
Jacob prophesies that the kingdom of the Jews
should be estabUshed until Him, as follows : —
" The ruler ^ shall not fail from Juda, nor the
Prince from his loins, until that which is
laid up for him shall come ; and he is the
expectation of the nations." 4. Whence the
Saviour also Himself cried aloud and said :
" The 9 law and the prophets prophesied until
John." If then there is now among the Jews
8 Gen. xlix. lo.
9 Matt. xi. 13 cf. Luc. xvi. 16.
58
DE INCARNATIONE VERBI DEI.
king or prophet or vision, they do well to
deny the Christ that is come. But if there is
neither king nor vision, but from that time forth
all prophecy is sealed and the city and temple
taken, why are they so irreligious and so per-
verse as to see what has happened, and yet to
deny Christ, Who has brought it all to pass ?
Or why, when they see even heathens deserting
their idols, and placing their hope, through
Christ, on the God of Israel, do they deny
Christ, Who was born of the root of Jesse after
the flesh and henceforth is King ? For if the
nations were worshipping some other God, and
not confessing the God of Abraham and Isaac
and Jacob and Moses, then, once more, they
would be doing well in alleging that God had
not come. 5. But if the Gentiles are honouring
the same God that gave the law to Moses and
made the promise to Abraham, and Whose word
the Jews dishonoured, — why are they ignorant,
or rather why do they choose to ignore, that
the J^ord foretold by the Scriptures has shone
forth upon the world, and appeared to it in
bodily form, as the Scripture said : " The ^
Lord God hath shined upon us ; " and again :
" He ^ sent His Word and healed them ;" and
again : " Not 3 a messenger, not an angel, but
the Lord Himself saved them ?" 6. Their
state may be compared to that of one out of
his right mind, who sees the earth illumined by
the sun, but denies the sun that illumines it.
For what more is there for him whom they
expect to do, when he is come ? To call the
heathen ? But they are called already. To
make prophecy, and king, and vision to cease ?
This too has already come to pass. To expose
the godlessness of idolatry ? It is already
exposed and condemned. Or to destroy death?
He is already destroyed. 7. What then has
not come to pass, that the Christ must do ?
What is left unfulfilled, that the J evvs should now
disbelieve with impunity ? For if, I say, —
which is just what we actually see, — there is no
longer king nor prophet nor Jerusalem nor
sacrifice nor vision among them, but even the
whole earth is filled with the knowledge of
God, and gentiles, leaving their godlessness,
are now taking refuge with the God of Abra-
ham, through the Word, even our Lord Jesus
Christ, then it must be plain, even to those who
are exceedingly obstinate, that the Christ is
come, and that He has illumined absolutely all
with His light, and given them the true and
divine teaching concerning His Father,
8. So one can fairly refute the Jews by these
and by other arguments from the Divine
Scriptures,
1 Cf. Ps. cxviii. 27, and for the literal sense, Num. vi. 25.
2 Ps. cvii. 20. 3 Isa. Ixiii. 9 (LXX.), and the note in the
(Queen's Printers') ' Variorum ' Bible.
§ 41. Answer to the Greeks. Do they re-
cognise the Logos ? If He manifests Himself
in the orgams77i of the Universe, why not
in one Body ? For a human body is a part
of the same whole.
But one cannot but be utterly astonished at
the Gentiles, who, while they laugh at what is
no matter for jesting, are themselves insensible
to their own disgrace, which they do not see
that they have set up in the shape of stocks
and stones. 2. Only, as our argument is not
lacking in demonstrative proof, come let us
put them also to shame on reasonable grounds,
— mainly from what we ourselves also see. For
what is there on our side that is absurd, or
worthy of derision ? Is it merely our saying
that the Word has been made manifest in the
body? But this even they will join in owning
to have happened without any absurdity, if they
shew themselves friends of truth. 3. If then
they deny that there is a Word of God at all,
they do so gratuitously *, jesting at what they
know not. 4. But if they confess that there is
a Word of God, and He ruler of the universe,
and that in Him the Father has produced the
creation, and that by His Providence the whole
receives light and life and being, and that He
reigns over all, so that from the works of His
providence He is known, and through Him the
Father, — consider, I pray you, whether they be
not unwittingly raising the jest against them-
selves. 5. The philosophers of the Greeks say
that the universe is a great body s ; and rightly
so. For we see it and its parts as objects of
our senses. If, then, the Word of God is in the
Universe, which is a body, and has united
Himself with the whole and with all its parts,
what is there surprising or absurd if we say
that He has united Himself^ with man also,
6, For if it were absurd for Him to have
been in a body at all, it would be absurd for
Him to be united with the whole either, and to
be giving light and movement to all things by
His providence. For the whole also is a body.
7. But if it beseems Him to unite Himself with
the universe, and to be made known in the
whole. It must beseem Him also to appear in
a human body, and that by Him it should be
illumined and work. For mankind is part of
the whole as well as the rest. And if it be un-
4 Athan. here assumes, for the purpose of his argiiment, the
principles of the Neo-platonist schools. They were influenced,
in regard to the Logos, by Philo, but even on this subject the germ
of their teaching may be traced in Plato, especially in the Timaus,
(See Drummond's Philo, i. 65—88. Bigg's Bamp. Led. 14, 18,
248—253, and St. Aug. Confess, in 'Nicene Fathers,' Series i,
vol. I, p. 107 and notes.) 5 Especially Plato, Tim. 30, &c.
6 eTTL^i^-qKcvai, cf. above, 20. 4, 6. The Union of God and Man
in Christ is of course 'hypostatic' or personal, and thus {supra
17. ij, different in kind from the union of the Word with Creation.
His argument is aa! /!c;«/«t\s. It was not for thinkers who_ identi-
fied the Universe with God to take exception to the idea of
Incarnation.
INCARNATION OF THE WORD.
59
seemly for a part to have been adopted as His
instrument to teach men of His Godhead, it
must be most absurd that He should be made
known even by the whole universe.
§ 42. His union with the body is based npon His
relation to Creation as a whole. He used- a
human body, since to man it was that He
wished to reveal Himself.
For just as, while the whole body is quick-
ened and illumined by man, supposing one
said it were absurd that man's power should
also be in the toe, he would be thought foolish ;
because, while granting that he pervades and
works in the whole, he demurs to his being in
the part also ; thus he who grants and believes
that the Word of God is in the whole Universe,
and that the whole is illumined and moved by
Him, should not think it absurd that a single
human body also should receive movement and
light from Him. 2. But if it is because the
human race is a thing created and has been
made out of nothing, that they regard that
manifestation of the Saviour in man, which we
speak of, as not seemly, it is high time for them
to eject Him from creation also ; for it too
has been brought into existence by the Word
out of nothing. 3. But if, even though crea-
tion be a thing made, it is not absurd that the
Word should be in it, then neither is it absurd
that He should be in man. For whatever idea
they form of the whole, they must necessarily
apply the like idea to the part. For man also,
as I said before, is a part of the whole. 4. Thus
it is not at all unseemly that the Word should
be in man, while all things are deriving from
Him their light and movement and light, as also
their authors say, " In 7 him we live and move
and have our being." 5. So, then, what is
there to scoff at in what we say, if the Word
has used that, wherein He is, as an instrument
to manifest Himself ? For were He not in it,
neither could He have used it ; but if we have
previously allowed that He is in the whole and
in its parts, what is there incredible in His
manifesting Himself in that wherein He is ?
6. For by His own power He is united^ wholly
with each and all, and orders all things without
stint, so that no one could have called it out of
place for Him to speak, and make known Him-
self and His Father, by means of sun, if He so
willed, or moon, or heaven, or earth, or waters,
or fire 9 ; inasmuch as He holds in one all
things at once, and is in fact not only in all,
but also in the part in question, and there
invisibly manifests Himself. In like manner,
7 See Acts. xvii. 28. 8 eTrt/SotVwi', see supra, note 3.
9 The superfluous TreTroirj/ceiai is ignored, being untranslateable
as the text blands. For a less simple conjecture, see the Bened.
note.
it cannot be absurd if, ordering as He does the
whole, and giving life to all things, and having
willed to make Himself known through men.
He has used as His instrument a human body
to manifest the truth and knowledge of the
Father. For humanity, too, is an actual part
of the whole. 7. And as Mind, pervading man
all through, is interpreted by a part of the body,
I mean the tongue, without any one saying,
I suppose, that the essence of the mind is on
that account lowered, so if the Word, pervading
all things, has used a human instrument, this
cannot appear unseemly. For, as I have said
previously, if it be unseemly to have used a body
as an instrument, it is unseemly also for Him to
be in the Whole.
§ 43. He came in Jumian rather than in any
nobler form, because (1) He came to save, not
to impress ; (2) Ma7i alone of creatures had
sinned. As men would not recognise His
works in the Universe, He came and worked
among them as Man ; in the sphere to which
they had limited themselves.
Now, if they ask. Why then did He not
appear by means of other and nobler parts of
creation, and use some nobler instrument, as
the sun, or moon, or stars, or fire, or air, instead
of man merely ? let them know that the Lord
came not to make a display, but to heal and
teach those who were suffering. 2. For the
way for one aiming at display would be, just to
appear, and to dazzle the beholders; but for
one seeking to heal and teach the way is, not
simply to sojourn here, but to give himself to
the aid of those in want, and to appear as they
who need him can bear it ; that he may not,
by exceeding the requirements of the sufferers,
trouble the very persons that need him, render-
ing God's appearance useless to them. 3. Now,
nothing in creation had gone astray with regard
to their notions of God, save man only. Why,
neither sun, nor moon, nor heaven, nor the
stars, nor water, nor air had swerved from
their order ; but knowing their Artificer and
Sovereign, the Word, they remain as they were
made ^ But men alone, having rejected what
was good, then devised things of nought instead
of the truth, and have ascribed the honour due
to God, and their knowledge of Him, to demons
and men in the shape of stones. 4. With
reason, then, since it were unworthy of the
Divine Goodness to overlook so grave a matter,
while yet men were not able to recognise Him
I This thought is beautifully expressed by Keble : —
' All true, all faultless, all in tune, Creation's wondrous choir
Opened in mystic unison, to last till time expire.
And still it lasts : by day and night with one consenting voice
All hyran Thy glory. Lord, aright, all worship and rejoice :
Man only mars the sweet accord ' . . . .
('Christian Year.' Fourth Sunday after Trinity.)
6o
DE INCARNATIONE VERBI DEL
as ordering and guiding the whole, He takes to
Himself as an instrument a part of the whole,
His human body, and unites ^ Himself with
that, in order that since men could not recog-
nise Him in the whole, they should not fail to
know Him in the part ; and since they could
not look up to His invisible power, might be
able, at any rate, from what resembled them-
selves to reason to Kim and to contemplate
Him, 5. For, men as they are, they will be able
to know His Father more quickly and directly
by a body of like nature and by the divine works
wrought through it, judging by comparison that
they are not human, but the works of God,
which are done by Him. 6. And if it were
absurd, as they say, for the Word to be known
through the works of the body, it would likewise
be absurd for Him to be known through the
works of the universe. For just as He is in
creation, and yet does not partake of its nature
in the least degree, but rather all things partakes
of His power ; so while He used the body as
His instrument He partook of no corporeal
property, but, on the contrary. Himself sancti-
fied even the body. 7. For if even Plato, who
is in such repute among the Greeks,' says * that
its ' author, beholding the universe tempest-
tossed, and in peril of going down to the place
of chaos, takes his seat at the helm of the soul
and comes to the rescue and corrects all its
calamities ; what is there incredible in what we
say, that, mankind being in error, the Word
lighted down s upon it and appeared as man,
that He might save it in its tempest by His
guidance and goodness ?
§ 44. As God made man by a word, 7vhy not
restore him by a word ? But ( i ) creation
out of nothifig is different frotn reparation of
what already exists. (2) Man was there with
a definite need, calling for a definite remedy.
Death was ingrained in man's nature : lie
the? I must wind life closely to human nature.
Therefore the Word became Incarnate that He
might meet and conquer death in His usurped
territory, {Simile of straw and asbestos.)
But perhaps, shamed into agreeing with this,
they will choose to say that God, if He wished
to reform and to save mankind, ought to have
done so by a mere fiat^, without His word
taking a body, in just the same way as He did
formerly, when He produced them out of
nothing. 2. To this objection of theirs a
reasonable answer would be : that formerly,
* Cf. 41. 5, note 3.
3 Cf. Orig. c. Cels. vi. 64, where there is the same contrast
between fieTe^eLv and /j-erdx^irdai.
4 Ath. paiaphrases loosely Plat. Politic. 273 D. See Jowett's
Plato (ed. 2), vol. iv. pp. 515, 553.
5 Lit. "sate down," as four lines above.
' With this discussion compare that upon ' repentance ' above
7. (esp. 7. 4).
noticing being in existence at all, what was
needed to make everything was a fiat and the
bare will to do so. But when man had once
been made, and necessity demanded a cure,
not for things that were not, but for things that
had come to be, it was naturally consequent
that the Physician and Saviour should appear
in what had come to be, in order also to cure
the things that were. For this cause, then.
He has become man, and used His body as
a human instrument. 3. For if this were not
the right way, how was the Word, choosing to
use an instrument, to appear ? or whence was
He to take it, save from those already in being,
and in need of His Godhead by means of one
like themselves ? For it was not things without
being that needed salvation, so that a bare
command should suffice, but man, already in
existence, was going to corruption and ruin 7.
It was then natural and right that the Word
should use a human instrument and reveal
Himself everywhither. 4. Secondly, you must
know this also, that the corruption which had
set in was not external to the body, but had
become attached to it ; and it was required
that, instead of corruption, life should cleave
to it ; so that, just as death has been engen-
dered in the body, so life may be engendered
in it also. 5. Now if death were external to
the body, it would be proper for life also to
have been engendered externally to it. But if
death was wound closely to the body and was
ruling over it as though united to it, it was
required that life also should be wound closely
to the body, that so the body, by putting on
life in its stead, should cast off corruption.
Besides, even supposing that the Word had
come outside the body, and not in it, death
would indeed have been defeated by Him, in
perfect accordance with nature, inasmuch as
death has no power against the Life ; but the
corruption attached to the body would have
remained in it none the less ^. 6. For this
cause the Saviour reasonably put on Him
a body, in order that the body, becoming
wound closely to the Life, should no longer, as
mortal, abide in death, but, as having put on
immortality, should thenceforth rise again and
remain immortal. For, once it had put on
corruption, it could not have risen again unless
it had put on life. And death likewise could
not, from its very nature, appear, save in the
body. Therefore He put on a body, that He
might find death in the body, and blot it out.
For how could the Lord have been proved at
all to be the Life, had He not quickened what
7 Restoration by a mere fiat would have shewn God's power,
the Incarnation shews His Love. See Orat, L 52, note i, ii. 68,
note I.
8 Cf. Orat. i. 56, note 5, 65, note 3.
INCARNATION OF THE WORD.
6i
was mortal ? 7. And just as, whereas stubble
is naturally destructible by fire, supposing
(firstly) a man keeps fire away fi-om the
stubble, though it is not burned, yet the
stubble remains, for all tliat, merely stubble,
fearing the threat of the fire — for fire has the
natural property of consuming it ; while if
a man (secondly) encloses it with a quantity of
asbestos, the substance said 9 to be an antidote
to fire, the stubble no longer dreads the fire,
being secured by its enclosure in incombustible
matter ; 8. in this very way one may say, with
regard to the body and death, that if death
had been kept from the body by a mere com-
mand on His part, it would none the less have
been mortal and corruptible, according to the
nature of bodies ; but, that this should not be,
it put on the incorporeal Word of God, and
thus no longer fears either death or corruption,
for it has life as a garment, and corruption is
done away in it.
§ 45. Thus once again every part of creation ma-
nifests the glory of God. Nature, the witness
to her Creator^ yields {by miracles) a second
testii?iony to God Incarnate. The witness of
Nature, perverted by man's sin, was thus
forced back to truth. If these reasons suffice
■ not, let the Greeks look at facts.
Consistently, therefore, the Word of God
took a body and has made use of a human in-
strument, in order to quicken the body also,
and as He is known in creation by His works
so to work in man as well, and to shew Himself
everywhere, leaving nothing void of His own
divinity, and of the knowledge of Him. 2. For
I resume, and repeat what I said before, that
the Saviour did this in order that, as He fills
all things on all sides by His presence, so also
He might fill all things with the knowledge of
Him, as the divine Scripture also says^ : "The
whole earth was filled with the knowledge
of the Lord." 3. For if a man will but
look up to heaven, he sees its Order, or if he
cannot raise his face to heaven, but only to
man, he sees His power, beyond comparison
with that of men, shewn by His works, and
learns that He alone among men is God the
\Vord. Or if a man is gone astray among
demons, and is in fear of them, he may see this
man drive them out, and make up his mind
that He is their Master. Or if a man has sunk
to the waters % and thinks that they are God, —
as the Egyptians, for instance, reverence the
water, — he may see its nature changed by Him,
and iearn that the Lord is Creator of the
9 See above 28. 3. He appears not to have seen the substance,
I Isa. xi. Q. For the argument, compare 'i\ n — 14.
a See Djlfinger, Gentile and Jew, i. 449.
waters. • 4. But if a man is gone down even to
Hades, and stands in awe of the heroes who
have descended thither, regarding them as gods,
yet he may see the fact of Christ's Resurrection
and victory over death, and infer that among
them also Christ alone is true God and Lord.
5. For the Lord touched all parts of creation,
and freed and undeceived all of them from
every illusion ; as Paul says : " Having 3 put off
from Himself the principalities and the powers,
He triumphed on the Cross:" that no one
might by any possibility be any longer deceived,
but everywhere might find the true Word of
God. 6. For thus man, shut in on every side*,
and beholding the divinity of the Word un-
folded everywhere, that is, in heaven, in Hades,
in man, upon earth, is no longer exposed to.
deceit concerning God, but is to worship Christ
alone, and through Him come rightly to know
the Father. 7. By these arguments, then, on
grounds of reason, the Gentiles in their turn
will fairly be put to shame by us. But if they
deem the arguments insufficient to shame them,
let them be assured of what we are saying at
any rate by facts obvious to the sight of all.
§46. Discredit, from the date of the Incarnation,
of idol-cultus, oracles, mythologies, demoniacal
energy, magic, and Gentile philosophy. And
whereas the old cults were strictly local and
independent, the worship of Christ is catholic
and uniform.
When did men begin to desert the worship-
ping of idols, save since God, the true Word of
God, has come among men ? Or when have
the oracles among the Greeks, and everywhere,
ceased and become empty, save when the
Saviour has manifested Himself upon earth ?
2. Or when did those who are called gods and
heroes in the poets begin to be convicted of
being merely mortal men s, save since the Lord
effected His conquest of death, and preserved
incorruptible the body he had taken, raising it
from the dead ? 3. Or when did the deceitful-
ness and madness of demons fall into con-
tempt, save when the power of God, the Word,
the Master of all these as well, condescending
because of man's weakness, appeared on earth?
Or when ^ did the art and the schools of magic
begin to be trodden down, save when the
divine manifestation of the Word took place
among men ? 4. And, in a word, at what time
has the wisdom of the Greeks become foolish,
save when the true Wisdom of God manifested
itself on eaith? For formerly the whole world
3 Col. ii. 15.
4 Tlie Incarnation completes the circle of God's self-witness and
of man's responsibility.
5 Cf. notes on c. Gent. ia, and 12. 2.
6 On the following argument see Dollinger ii. 210 sqq., and
■Rigg, Banijtt. Led. 248, note i.
62
DE INCARNATIONE VERBl DEI.
and every place was led astray by the worship-
ping of idols, and men regarded nothing else
but the idols as gods. But now, all the world
over, men are deserting the superstition of the
idols, and taking refuge with Christ ; and, wor-
shipping Him as God, are by His means com-
ing to know that Father also Whom they knew
not. 5. And, marvellous fact, whereas the
objects of worship were various and of vast
number, and each place had its own idol, and
he who was accounted a god among them had
no power to pass over to the neighbouring
place, so as to persuade those of neighbouring
peoples to worship him, but was barely served
even among his own people ; for no one else
worshipped his neighbour's god — on the con-
. trary, each man kept to his own idol 7, thinking
it to be lord of all ; — Christ alone is worshipped
as one and the same among all peoples ; and
what the weakness of the idols could not do —
to persuade, namely, even those dwelling close
at hand, — this Christ has done, persuading
not only those close at hand, but simply the
entire world, to worship one and the same
Lord, and through Him God, even His Father.
f 47. The numerous oracles^ — -fancied apparitiotis
in sacred places, &'c., dispelled by the sign of
the Cross. The old gods prove to have been mere
jneti. Magic is exposed. And whereas Phi-
losophy could only persuade select and local
cliques of Immortality and goodtiess, — inen of
little ititellect have infused irito the multitudes
of the churches the principle of a supernatural
life.
And whereas formerly every place was full
of the deceit of the oracles 8, and the oracles at
Delphi and Dodona, and in Boeotias and Lycia^
and Libya = and Egypt and those of the Cabiri 3,
and the Pythoness, were held in repute by
men's imagination, now, since Christ has begun
to be preached everywhere, their madness also
has ceased and there is none among them
to divine any more. 2. And whereas formerly
demons used to deceive 4 men's fancy, occupy-
ing springs or rivers, trees or stones, and thus
imposed upon the simple by their juggleries ;
now, after the divine visitation of the Word,
their deception has ceased. For by the Sign
of the Cross, though a man but use it, he
drives out their deceits. 3. And while for-
7 On the local character of ancient religions, see Dollinger i.
109, &c., and Coulanges, La Cite Antigue, Book III. ch. vL, and
v. lii. (the substance in Barker's A^yan Civilisation).
8 On these, see Dollinger, i. 216, &c., and Milton's Ode on the
Nativity, stanza xix.
9 i.e. that ofTrophonius. > Patara. 2 Ammon.
3 See Dollinger, i. 73, 164-70 : the Cabiri were pre-Hellenic
deities, worshipped in many ancient sanctuaries, but principally
in Samothrace and Lemno?.
4 Cf. yit.Ant.wi. — xliii., also Dollinger, ii. 212, and a curious
catena of extracts from early Fathers, collected by Hurter in
' Opuscula SS. Patrum Selects,' vol. i. appendix.
merly men held to be gods the Zeus and
Cronos and Apollo and the heroes mentioned
in the poets, and went astray in honouring
them ; now that the Saviour has appeared
among men, those others have been exposed
as mortal mens, and Christ alone has been
recognised among men as the true God, the
Word of God. 4. And what is one to say
of the magic ^ esteemed among them ? that
before the Word sojourned among us this was
strong and active among Egyptians, and Chal-
dees, and Indians, and inspired awe in those
who saw it ; but that by the presence of the
Truth, and the Appearing of the Word, it also has
been thoroughly confuted, and brought wholly
to nought. 5. But as to Gentile wisdom, and
the sounding pretensions of the philosophers,
I think none can need our argument, since the
wonder is before the eyes of all, that while the
wise among the Greeks had written so much,
and were unable to persuade even a few ? from
their own neighbourhood, concerning immor-
tality and a virtuous life, Christ alone, by
ordinary language, and by men not clever with
the tongue, has throughout all the world per
suaded whole churches full of men to despise
death, and to mind the things of immortality ;
to overlook what is temporal and to turn their
eyes to what is eternal ; to think nothing of
earthly glory and to strive only for the hea-
venly,
§ 48. Further facts. Christian continence of vir-
gins and ascetics. Martyrs. The power of the
Cross against demons and magic. Christ by
His Power shews Himself more than a man,
more than a magician, more than a spirit.
For all these are totally subject to Him.
Therefore He is the Word of God.
Now these arguments of ours do not amount
merely to words, but have in actual experience
a witness to their truth. 2. For let him that
will, go up and behold the proof of virtue in
the virgins of Christ and in the young men
that practise holy chastity \ and the assurance
of immortality in so great a band of His
martyrs. 3. And let him come who would
test by experience what we have now said, and
in the very presence of the deceit of demons
and the imposture of oracles and the marvels
of magic, let him use the Sign of that Cross
which is laughed at among them, and he shall
see how by its means demons fly, oracles cease,
all magic and witchcraft is brought to nought.
4. Who, then, and how great is this Christ,
S For this opinion, see note i on c. Gent. 12.
^ See Dollinger, ii. 210, and (on Julian) 215.
7 InPlato's ideal Republic, the notion of any direct influence
of the highest ideals upon the masses is quite absent. Tlieir hap-
piness is to be in passive obedience to the few whom those ideals
inspire. (Contrast Isa. liv. 13, Jer. xxxi. 34.)
8 Cf. Hist. Arian. 75, Afol. Const. 3:5.
INCARNATION OF THE WORD.
63
Wlio by His own Name and Presence casts
into the shade and brings to nought all things
on every side, and is alone strong against
all, and has filled the whole world with His
teaching ? Let the Greeks tell us, who are
pleased to laugh, and blush not. 5. For if He
is a man, how then has one man exceeded the
power of all whom even themselves hold to be
gods, and convicted them by His own power
of being nothing? But if they call Him a ma-
gician, how can it be that by a magician all
magic is destroyed, instead of being confirmed?
For if He conquered particular magicians, or
prevailed over one only, it would be proper
for them to hold that He excelled the rest by
superior skill ; 6. but if His Cross has won the
victory over absolutely all magic, and over the
very name of it, it must be plain that the
Saviour is not a magician, seeing that even
those demons who are invoked by the other
magicians fly from Him as their Master.
7. Who He is, then, let the Greeks tell us,
whose only serious pursuit is jesting. Perhaps
they might say that He, too, was a demon, and
hence His strength. But say this as they will,
they will have the laugh against them, for they
can once more be put to shame by our former
proofs. For how is it possible that He should
be a demon who drives the demons out ? 8. For
if He simply drove out particular demons, it
might properly be held that by the chief of
demons He prevailed against the lesser, just as
the Jews said to Him when they wished to
insult Him. But if, by His Name being named,
all madness of the demons is uprooted and
chased away, it must be evident that here, too,
they are wrong, and that our Lord and Saviour
Christ is not, as they think, some demoniacal
power. 9. Then, if the Saviour is neither
a man simply, nor a magician, nor some demon,
but has by His own Godhead brought to nought
and cast into the shade both the doctrine
found in the poets and the delusion of the
demons and the wisdom of the Gentiles, it
must be plain and will be owned by all, that
this is the true Son of God, even the Word and
Wisdom and Power of the Father from the
beginning. For this is why His works also are
no works of man, but are recognised to be
above man, and truly God's works, both from
the facts in themselves, and from comparison
with [the rest of] mankind.
^ 49. His Birth and Miracles. You call
Asclepius, Heracles, and Dionysus gods for
their works. Contrast their works with
His, and the wonders at His death, i^c.
For what man, that ever was born, formed
a body for himself from a virgin alone?
Or what man ever healed such diseases as
the common Lord of all ? Or who has restored
what was wanting to man's nature, and made
one blind from his birth to see? 2. Asclepius
was deified among them, because he practised
medicine and found out herbs for bodies that
were sick ; not forming them himself out of the
earth, but discovering them by science drawn
from nature. But what is this to what was
done by the Saviour, in that, instead of healing
a wound. He modified a man's original nature,
and restored the body whole. 3. Heracles
is worshipped as a god among the Greeks
because he fought against men, his peers, and
destroyed wild beasts by guile. What is this
to what was done by the Word, in driving
away from man diseases and demons and
death itself? Dionysus is worshipped among
them because he has taught man drunkenness ;
but the true Saviour and Lord of all, for teach-
ing temperance, is mocked by these people.
4. But let these matters pass. What will they
say to the other miracles of His Godhead?
At what man's death was the sun darkened
and the earth shaken ? Lo even to this day
men are dying, and they died also of old.
When did any such-like wonder happen in
their case? 5. Or, to pass over the deeds
done through His body, and mention those
after its rising again : what man's doctrine
that ever was has prevailed everywhere, one
and the same, from one end of the earth to
the other, so that his worship has winged its
way through every land ? 6. Or why, if Christ
is, as they say, a man, and not God the Word,
is not His worship prevented by the gods they
have from passing into the same land where
they are ? Or why on the contrary does the
Word Himself, sojourning here, by His teach-
ing stop their worship and put their deception
to shame?
§50. Impotence atid rivalries of the Sophists put
to shame by the Death of Christ. His Resur-
rection unparalleled eve7i in Greek legend.
Many before this Man have been kings and
tyrants of the world, many are on record who
have been wise men and magicians, among
the Chaldseans and Egyptians and Indians ;
which of these, I say, not after death, but
while still alive, was ever able so far to pre-
vail as to fill the whole earth with his teaching
and reform so great a multitude from the
superstition of idols, as our Saviour has brought
over from idols to Himself? 2. The philoso-
phers of the Greeks have composed many works
with plausibility and verbal skill ; what result,
then, have they exhibited so great as has the
Cross of Christ? For the refinements they
taught were plausible enough till they died ;
but even the influence they seemed to have
H
DE INCARNATIONE VERBI DEI.
while alive was subject to their mutual rivalries :
and they were emulous, and declaimed against
one another. 3. But the Word of God, most
strange fact, teaching in meaner language, has
cast into the shade the choice sophists ; and
while He has, by drawing all to Himself,
brought their schools to nought, He has filled
His own churches ; and the marvellous thing
is, that by going down as man to death. He
has brought to nought the sounding utterances
of the wise 9 concerning idols. 4. For whose
death ever drove out demons ? or whose death
did demons ever fear, as they did that of
Christ? For where the Saviour's name is
named, there every demon is driven out. Or
who has so rid men of the passions of the
natural man, that whoremongers are chaste,
and murderers no longer hold the sword, and
those who were formerly mastered by cowardice
play the man? 5. And, in short, who per-
suaded men of barbarous countries and heathen
men in divers places to lay aside their madness,
and to mind peace, if it be not the Faith of
Christ and the Sign of the Cross? Or who
else has given men such assurance of im-
mortality, as has the Cross of Christ, and
the Resurrection of His Body? 6. For al-
though the Greeks have told all manner of
false tales, yet they were not able to feign a
Resurrection of their idols, — for it never crossed
their mind, whether it be at all possible for
the body again to exist after death. And
here one would most especially accept their
•testimony, inasmuch as by this opinion they
have exposed the weakness of their own
idolatry, while leaving the possibility open
to Christ, so that hence also He might be
made known among all as Son of God.
§ 51. The new virtue of continence. Revolutioft of
Society, purified and pacified by Christianity.
Which of mankind, again, after his death,
or else while living, taught concerning virginity,
and that this virtue was not impossible among
men ? But Christ, our Saviour and King of
all, had such power in His teaching concerning
it, that even children not yet arrived at the
lawful age vow that virginity which lies beyond
the law. 2. What man has ever yet been able
to pass so far as to come among Scythians and
Ethiopians, or Persians or Armenians or Goths,
or those we hear of beyond the ocean or those
beyond Hyrcania, or even the Egyptians and
Chaldees, men that mind magic and are super-
stitious beyond nature and savage in their
ways, and to preach at all about virtue and
self-control, and against the worshipping of
idols, as has the Lord of all, the Power of
9 e.g. lamblichus, &c., cf. Introd. to c. Gent.
God, our Lord Jesus Christ? 3. Who not
only preached by means of His own disciples,
but also carried persuasion to men's mind, to
lay aside the fierceness of their manners, and
no longer to serve their ancestral gods, but
to learn to know Him, and through Him
to worship the Father. 4. For formerly, while
in idolatry, Greeks and Barbarians used to
war against each other, and were actually
cruel to their own kin. For it was impossible
for any one to cross sea or land at all, with-
out arming the hand with swords ', because of
their implacable fighting among themselves.
5. For the whole course of their life was
carried on by arms, and the sword with them
took the place of a staff, and was their support
in every emergency ; and still, as I said before,
they were serving idols, and offering sacrifices
to demons, while for all their idolatrous super-
stition they could not be reclaimed from this
spirit. 6. But when they have come over to
the school of Christ, then, strangely enough,
as men truly pricked in conscience, they have
laid aside the savagery of their murders and
no longer mind the things of war : but all
is at peace with them, and from henceforth
what makes for friendship is to their liking.
§ 52. IVars, &>c., roused by demons, lulled by
Christianity .
Who then is He that has done this, or who is
He that has united in peace men that hated one
another, save the beloved Son of the Father,
the common Saviour of all, even Jesus Christ,
Who by His own love underwent all things for
our salvation ? For even from of old it was
prophesied of the peace He was to usher in,
where the Scripture says : " They ^ shall beat
their swords into ploughshares, and their
pikes into sickles, and nation shall not take
the sword against nation, neither shall they
learn war any more." 2. And this is at
least not incredible, inasmuch as even now
those barbarians who have an innate savagery
of manners, while they still sacrifice to the
idols of their country, are mad against one
another, and cannot endure to be a single
hour without weapons : 3. but when they
hear the teaching of Christ, straightway instead
of fighting they turn to husbandry, and instead
of arming their hands with weapons they raise
them in prayer, and in a word, in place of
fighting among themselves, henceforth they
arm against the devil and against evil spirits,
subduing these by self-restraint and virtue of
soul. 4. Now this is at once a proof of the di-
vinity of the Saviour, since what men could not
' Cf. Thucy. i. s 6 : ' no-aa. yap -i) 'EAXos ea-iSrjpoijtopet,' &C.
2 Isa. ii. 4.
INCARNATION OF THE WORD.
65
learn among idols 3 they have learned from
Him ; and no small exposure of the weakness
and nothingness of demons and idols. For
demons, knowing their own weakness, for this
reason formerly set men to make war against
one another, lest, if they ceased from mutual
strife, the} should turn to battle against demons.
5. Why, they who become disciples of Christ,
instead of warring with each other, stand
arrayed against demons by their habits and
their virtuous actions : and they rout them,
and mock at their captain the devil ; so that in
youth they are self-restrained, in temptations
endure, in labours persevere, when insulted
are patient, when robbed make light of it :
and, wonderful as it is, they despise even death
and become martyrs of Christ.
§ 53. The whole fabric of Gentilism levelled at
a blow by Christ secretly addressing the con-
science of man.
And to mention one proof of the divinity of
the Saviour, which is indeed utterly surprising,
— what mere man or magician or t)n:ant or king
was ever able by himself to engage with so
many, and to fight the battle against all idolatry
and the whole demoniacal host and all magic,
and all the wisdom of th-* Greeks, while they
were so strong and still flourishing and im-
posing upon all, and at one onset to check
them all, as was our Lord, the true Word of
God, Who, invisibly exposing each man's error,
is by Himself bearing off all men from them all,
so that while they who were worshipping idols
now trample upon them, those in repute for
magic burn their books, and the wise prefer to
all studies the interpretation of the Gospels ?
2. For whom they used to worship, them they
are deserting, and Whom they used to mock as
one crucified. Him they worship as Christ, con-
fessing Him to be God. And they that are
called gods among them are routed by the Sign
of the Cross, while the Crucified Saviour is pro-
claimed in all the world as God and the Son of
God. And the gods worshipped among the
Greeks are falling into ill repute at their hands,
as scandalous beings ; while those who receive
the teaching of Christ live a chaster life than
they. 3. If, then, these and the like are hu-
man works, let him who will point out similar
works on the part of men of former time, and so
convince us. But if they prove to be, and are,
not men's works, but God's, why are the unbe-
lievers so irreligious as not to recognise the
Master that wrought them ? 4. For their case
is as though a man, from the works of creation,
S St. Augustine, Civ. D. IV. xvi. commenting on the fact that
the temple of ' Repose ' (Quies) at Rome was not within the city
walls, suggests ' qui illam turbam colere perseveraret . . . doemonio-
rum, eum Quietem habere non posse.'
failed to know God their Artificer. For if they
knew His Godhead from His power over the
universe, they would have known that the
bodily works of Christ also are not human, but
are the works of the Saviour of all, the Word of
God, And did they thus know, " they would
not," as Paul said -*, " have crucified the Lord
of glory."
§54. The Word Incarnate, as is the case with
the Invisible God, is known to us by His works.
By thefti we recognise His deifying mission.
Let us be content to enumerate a few of them,
leaving their dazzling plentitude to him who
will behold.
As, then, if a man should wish to see God,
Who is invisible by nature and not seen at all,
he may know and apprehend Him from His
works : so let him who fails to see Christ with
his understanding, at least apprehend Him by
the works of His body, and test whether they
be human works or God's works. 2. And if
they be human, let him scoff ; but if they are
not human, but of God, let him recognise it,
and not laugh at what is no matter for scoffing;
but rather let him marvel that by so ordinary
a means things divine have been manifested
to us, and that by death immortality has
reached to all, and that by the Word becoming
man, the universal Providence has been known,
and its Giver and Artificer the very Word of
God. 3. For He was made man that we
might be made God s ; and He manifested
Himself by a body that we might receive the
idea of the unseen Father; and He endured
the insolence of men that we might inherit
immortality. For while He Himself was in
no way injured, being impassible and incor-
ruptible and very Word and God, men who
were suffering, and for whose sakes He endured
all this. He maintained and preserved in His
own impassibility. 4. And, in a word, the
achievements of the Saviour, resulting from
His becoming man, are of such kind and
number, that if one should wish to enumerate
them, he may be compared to men who gaze
at the expanse of the sea and wish to coimt
its waves. For as one cannot take in the
whole of the waves with his eyes, for those
which are coming on baffle the sense of him
4 I Cor. ii. 8.
5 eeoiroirjeoj/aei'. See Orat. ii. 70, note 1, and many other pas-
aages in those Discourses, as well as Letters 60. 4, 61. 2. (Eucha-
ristic reference), de Spinodis 51, note 7. (Compare also Iren. IV.
xxxviii. 4, ' non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homi-
nes, tunc demum dii,' cf. iiJ. praef. ^ fin. also V. ix. 2, ' sublevat
in vitam Dei.' Origen Cels. iii. 1% fin. touches the same thought,
but Ath. is here in closer affinity to the idea of Irenaeus than to
that of Origen.) The New Test, reference is 2 Pet. i. 4, rather than
Heb. ii. 9 sqq. ; the Old Test., Ps. Ixxxii. 6, which seems to under-
lie Orat. iii. 25 (note 5). In spite of the last mentioned passagCj
' God ' is far preferable as a rendering, in most places,^ to ' gods,
which lias heathenish associations. To us (i Cor. viiL 6) there
are no such things as ' gods." (The best summary of patristic teach-
ing on this subject is given by Hamack Dg. ii. p. 46 note.)
VOL. IV.
F
66
DE INCARNATIONE VERBI DEI.
that attempts it; so for him that would take
in all the achievements of Christ in the body,
it is impossible to take in the whole, even by
reckoning them up, as those which go beyond
his thought are more than those he thinks he
has taken in. 5. Better is it, then, not to
aim at speaking of the whole, where one
cannot do justice even to a part, but, after
mentioning one more, to leave the whole for
you to marvel at. For all alike are marvellous,
and wherever a man turns his glance, he may
behold on that side the divinity of the Word,
and be struck with exceeding great awe.
§55. Summary of foregoing. Cessation of pagan
oracles, &'c. : propagation of the faith. The
true King has come forth and silenced all
usurpers.
This, then, after what we have so far said,
it is right for you to realize, and to take as
the sum of what we have already stated, and
to marvel at exceedingly ; namely, that since
the Saviour has come among us, idolatry not
only has no longer increased, but what there
was is diminishing and gradually coming to an
end : and not only does the wisdom of the
Greeks no longer advance, but what there is
is now fading away : and demons, so far from
cheating any more by illusions and prophecies
and magic arts, if they so much as dare to
make the attempt, are put to shame by the
sign of the Cross. 2. And to sum the matter
up : behold how the Saviour's doctrine is
everywhere increasing, while all idolatry and
everything opposed to the faith of Christ is
daily dwindling, and losing power, and falling.
And thus beholding, worship the Saviour,
" Who is above all " and mighty, even God the
Word ; and condemn those who are being
worsted and done away by Him. 3. For as,
when the sun is come, darkness no longer
prevails, but if any be still left anywhere it is
driven away ; so, now that the divine Appear-
ing of the Word of God is come, the darkness
of the idols prevails no more, and all parts of
the world in every direction are illumined by
His teaching. 4. And as, when a king is
reigning in some country without appearing
but keeps at home in his own house, often
some disorderly persons, abusing his retire-
ment, proclaim themselves ; and each of them,
by assuming the character, imposes on the
simple as king, and so men are led astray
by the name, hearing that there is a king, but
not seeing him, if for no other reason, because
they cannot enter the house ; but when the
real king comes forth and appears, then the
disorderly impostors are exposed by his pre-
sence, while men, seeing the real king, desert
those who previously led them astray : 5. in
like manner, the evil spirits formerly used to
deceive men, investing themselves with God's
honour ; but when the Word of God appeared
in a body, and made known to us His own
Father, then at length the deceit of the evil
spirits is done away and stopped, while men,
turning their eyes to the true God, Word of the
Father, are deserting the idols, and now coming
to know the true God. 6. Now this is a proof
that Christ is God the Word, and the Power
of God. For whereas human things cease,
and the Word of Christ abides, it is clear to
all eyes that what ceases is temporary, but
that He Who abides is God, and the true Son
of God, His only-begotten Word.
§56. Search then, the Scriptures ^ if you can^ and
so fill up this sketch. Learn to look for the
Second Advent and Judgment.
Let this, then, Christ -loving man, be our
offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch
and outline, in a short compass, of the faith
of Christ and of His Divine appearing to
usward. But you, taking occasion by this,
if you light upon the text of the Scriptures,
by genuinely applying your mind to them, will
learn from them more completely and clearly
the exact detail of what we have said. 2. For
they were spoken and written by God, through
men who spoke of God. But we impart of
what we have learned from inspired teachers
who have been conversant with them, who
have also become martyrs for the deity of
Christ, to your zeal for learning, in turn.
3. And you will also learn about His second
glorious and truly divine appearing to us,
when no longer in lowliness, but in His own
glory, — no longer in humble guise, but in His
own magnificence, — He is to come, no more
to suffer, but thenceforth to render to all the
fruit of His own Cross, that is, the resurrection
and incorruption ; and no longer to be judged,
but to judge all, by what each has done in the
body, whether good or evil ; where there is
laid up for the good the kingdom of heaven,
but for them that have done evil everlasting
fire and outer darkness. 4. For thus the Lord
Himself also says : " Henceforth ^ ye shall see
the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of
power, and coming on the clouds of heaven
in the glory of the Father." 5. And for this
very reason there is also a word of the Saviour
to prepare us for that day, in these words :
" Be? ye ready and watch, for He cometh at
an hour ye know not." For, according to
the blessed Paul : " We ^ must all stand before
the judgment-seat of Christ, that each one
* Matt. xxvi. 64. 7 Cf. Matt. xxiv. 42 ; Marc. xiiL 35,
8 2 Cor. V. 10 ; cf. Rom. xiv. 10.
INCARNATION OF THE WORD.
^7
may receive according as he hath done in
the body, whether it be good or bad."
§ 57. Above all, so live that you may have the
right to eat of this tree of knowledge and life,
and so come to eternal joys. Doxology.
But for the searching of the Scriptures and
true knowledge of them, an honourable life is
needed, and a pure soul, and that virtue which
is according to Christ; so that the intellect
guiding its path by it, may be able to attain
what it desires, and to comprehend it, in so
far as it is accessible to human nature to learn
concerning the Word of God. 2. For without
a pure mind and a modelling of the life after
the saints, a man could not possibly com-
prehend the words of the saints. 3. For just
as, if a man wished to see the light of the sun,
he would at any rate wipe and brighten his
eye, purifying himself in some sort like what
he desires, so that the eye, thus becoming
light, may see the light of the sun ; or as,
if a man would see a city or country, he at
any rate comes to the place to see it ; — thus
he that would comprehend the mind of those
who speak of God must needs begin by washing
and cleansing his soul, by his manner of living,
and approach the saints themselves by imitat-
ing their works ; so that, associated with them
in the conduct of a common life, he may
understand also what has been revealed to
them by God, and thenceforth, as closely knit
to them, may escape the peril of the sinners
and their fire at the day of judgment, and
receive what is laid up for the saints in the
kingdom of heaven, which " Eye hath not
seen 9, nor ear heard, neither have entered
into the heart of man," whatsoever things
are prepared for them that live a virtuous life,
and love the God and Father, in Christ Jesus
our Lord : through Whom and with Whom
be to the Father Himself, with the Son Him-
self, in the Holy Spirit, honour and might and
glory for ever and ever. Amen.
9 I Cor. ii. 9.
DEPOSITIO ARIL
Introduction to the 'Deposition of Arius' and Encyclical Letter
OF Alexander.
The following documents form the fittest opening to the series of Anti-Arian writings of
Athanasius. They are included in the Benedictine edition of his works, and in the Oxford
Collection of Histo7-ical Tracts, of which the present translation is a revision. The possibility
that the Encyclical Letter was drawn up by Athanasius himself, now deacon and Secretary
to Bishop Alexander (Prolegg. ch. ii. § 2), is a further reason for its inclusion. The Athanasian
authorship is maintained by Newman on the following grounds, which his notes will be found
to bear out. (i) Total dissimilarity of style as compared with Alexander's letter to his name-
sake of Byzantium (given by Theodoret, H. E. i. 4). That piece is in an elaborate and involved
style, full of compound words, with nothing of the Athanasian simpUcity and vigour. (2) Re-
markable identity of style with that of Athanasius, extending to his most characteristic expres-
sions. (3) Distinctness of the 'theological \\&n^ and terminology of Alexander as compared
with Athanasius ; the Encyclical coinciding with the latter against the former. (4) Athanasian
use of certain texts. These arguments are of great weight, and make out at least z. prima facie
case for Newman's view. The latter has the weight of Bohringer's opinion on its side, while
the counter-arguments of KoUing (vol. i. p. 105) are trivial. Gwatkin, Studies, 29, note 4,
misses the points (Nos. i and 3) of Newman's argument, which may fairly be said to hold
the field. The deposition of Arius at Alexandria took place (Prolegg. uhi supra) in 320 or
321 ; more likely the latter. Whether the Encyclical was drawn up at the Synod which
deposed Arius, as is generally supposed, or some two years later, as has been inferred from
the references to Eusebius of Nicomedia (D. C. B. i. 80, of. Prolegg. ubi supra, note i),
is a question that may for our present purpose be left open. In any case it is one of the
earliest documents of the Arian controversy. It should be noted that the onoovaiov does not
occur in this document, a fact of importance in the history of the adoption of the word
as a test at Nicsea, cf. Prolegg. ch, ii. § 3 (1) and (2) b. At this stage the Alexandrians
were content with the formulae Sfioios kqt oixrlav (Athan.), an-apoXXaKrof elKotv, dTrr/Kpifiayfiepr) ifi^epeia
(Alex, in Thdt.), which were afterwards found inadequate.
The letter, after stating the circumstances which call it forth, and recording the doctrine
propounded by Arius, and his deposition, points out some of the leading texts which condemn
the doctrine (§§ 3, 4). The Arians are then (§ 5) compared to other heretics, and the bishops
of the Church generally warned (§ 6) against the intrigues of Eusebius of Nicomedia. The
letter is signed by the sixteen presbyters of Alexandria, and the twenty-four deacons (Athan-
asius signs fourth), as well as by eighteen presb)^ers and twenty deacons of the Mareotis. The
scriptm-al argument of the Epistle is the germ of the polemic developed in the successive Anti-
Arian treatises which form the bulk of the present volume.
DEPOSITION OF ARIUS.
S. Alexander's Deposition of Arlus and his
companions^ and Encyclical Letter on the
subject.
Alexander, being assembled with his be-
loved brethren, the Presbyters and Deacons of
Alexandria, and the Mareotis, greets them in
the Lord.
Although you have already subscribed to
the letter I addressed to Arius and his fellows,
exhorting them to renounce his impiety, and
to submit themselves to the sound Catholic
Faith, and have shewn your right-mindedness
and agreement in the doctrines of the Catholic
Church : yet forasmuch as I have written also
to our fellow-ministers in every place con-
cerning Arius and his fellows, and especially
since some of you, as the Presbyters Chares
and Pistus ', and the Deacons Serapion,
Parammon, Zosimus, and Irenseus, have joined
Arius and his fellows, and been content to
suffer deposition with them, I thought it
needful to assemble together you, the Clergy
of the city, and to send for you the Clergy
of the Mareotis, in order that you may learn
what I am now writing, and may testify your
agreement thereto, and give your concurrence
in the deposition of Arius, Pistus, and their
fellows. For it is desirable that you should
be made acquainted with what I write, and
that each of you should heartily embrace it,
as though he had written it himself.
A Copy.
To his dearly beloved and most honoured
fellow-ministers of the CathoHc Church in
every place, Alexander sends health in the
Lord.
I. As there is one body" of the Catholic
Church, and a command is given us in the
sacred Scriptures to preserve the bond of unity
and peace, it is agreeable thereto, that we
» Cf. Apol. Ar.%2^
' (Epb. iv. 4.) St. Alexander in Theod. begins his Epistle to his
luunesake of Constantinople with some moral reflections, concerning
ambition and avarice. Athan. indeed uses a similar introduction
to his £/. -i^^., but it is not addressed to an individual.
should write and signify to one another what-
ever is done by each of us individually; so
that whether one member suffer or rejoice, we ^
may either suffer or rejoice with one another.
Now there are gone forth in this diocese, at
this time, certain lawless 3 men, enemies of
Christ, teaching an apostasy, which one may
justly suspect and designate as a forerunner*
of Antichrist I was desirous s to pass such a
matter by without notice, in the hope that
perhaps the evil would spend itself among its
supporters, and not extend to other places to
defile^ the ears 7 of the simple^. But seeing
that Eusebius, now of Nicomedia, who thinks
that the government of the Church rests with
him, because retribution has not come upon
him for his desertion of Berytus, when he had
cast an eye 9 of desire on the Church of the
Nicomedians, begins to support these apostates,
and has taken upon him to write letters every
where in their behalf, if by any means he may
draw in certain ignorant persons to this most
base and antichristian heresy ; I am therefore
constrained, knowing what is written in the
law, no longer to hold my peace, but to make
it known to you all; that you may under-
stand who the apostates are, and the cavils '°
which their heresy has adopted, and that,
should Eusebius write to you, you may pay
no attention to him, for he now desires by
means of these men to exhibit anew his old
malevolence", which has so long been con-
cealed, pretending to write in their favour,
3 n-apotfojxoi. vid. Hist. Ar.%ix init 75 fin. 79.
4 7rpo5po/jioi/ 'AvTixp'O'Tou. vid- Orat. i. 7. yit. Ant. 69. note
on de Syn. $• ^
5 (cal ipovKofiriv fiev (TiWTrp .... ewetSr/ Se . . . . avdyKTrfV eiTXOV.
vid. A^oi. contra. Ar. % \ init. de Deer. § 2. Orat. i. 23 init.
Orat. iL init. Orat. iii. i. ad Serap. i. i. 16. ii. i init. iij.
iniu iv. 8 init. Letters 52. 2, 59. 3 fin. 61. i. contra Apolliit. i.
I init.
6 pviraxrr), and infr. pvnov. vid. I/ist. Ar. § 3. § 8a <& Deer.
§ 2. kp. Mg. II fin. Orat. i. 10.
7 aKois, and infr. oKods ^u'ei. vid. Ep. Mg. % 13. Orat. L
§ 7. Hist. /)r. § 56.
8 a/ctpatwi'. Apol. contr. Ar. § i. Ep. .nEg. § 18. Letten
59. X, 60. 2 fin. Orat. i. 8.
9 kTtoi^da\ii.laas also used of Eusebius Apol. contr. Ar. § o.
Hist.Ar. §7. ...
10 pijfioTio. vid. de Deer. § 8, 18. Orat. i. 10. de Sent. § 23 init
S. Dionysius also uses it. Ibid. § 18.
" Ktt/toi'oioi'. vid Hist. Ar. % 75. de Deer. § i. et al.
70
DEPOSITIO ARIL
while in truth it clearly appears, that he does
it to forward his own interests.
2. Now those who became apostates are
these, Arius, Achilles, Aeithales, Carpones, an-
other Arius, andSarmates, sometime Presbyters :
Euzoius, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and
Gaius, sometime Deacons : and with them Se-
cundus and Theonas, sometime called Bishops.
And the novelties they have invented and put
forth contrary to the Scriptures are these follow-
ing : — God was not always a Father '^, but there
was a time when God was not a Father. The
Word of God was not always, but originated from
things that were not; for God that is, has made
him that was not, of that which was not ;
wherefore there was a time when He was not ;
for the Son is a creature and a work. Neither
is He Hke in essence to the Father ; neither is
He the true and natural Word of the Father ;
neither is He His true Wisdom ; but He is
one of the things made and created, and is
called the Word and Wisdom by an abuse
of terms, since He Himself originated by the
proper Word of God, and by the Wisdom that
is in God, by which God has made not only all
other things but Him also. Wherefore He
is by nature subject to change and variation,
as are all rational creatures. And the Word
is foreign from the essence '3 of the Father,
and is alien and separated therefrom. And the
Father cannot be described by the Son, for the
Word does not know the Father perfectly
and accurately, neither can He see Him per
fectly. Moreover, the Son knows not His
own essence as it really is; for He is made
for us, that God might create us by Him, as
by an instrument; and He would not have
existed, had not God wished to create us.
Accordingly, when some one asked them,
whether the Word of God can possibly change
as the devil changed, they were not afraid to
say that He can ; for being something made
and created, His nature is subject to change.
3. Now when Arius and his fellows made
these assertions, and shamelessly avowed them,
we being assembled with the Bishops of Egypt
and Libya, nearly a hundred in number, ana-
thematized both them and their followers.
But Eusebius and his fellows admitted them to
communion, being desirous to mingle falsehood
with the truth, and impiety with piety. But
they will not be able to do so, for the truth
_ " ouK del na-rqp. This enumeration of Ariuss tenets, and par-
trailarly the mention of the first, corresponds to tie Deer. § 6. Efi.
^g. § 12. as being taken from the Thalia. Orai. i. § 5. and far
less with Alex. ap. Theod. p. 73T, 2. vid. 2.\%oSeni. D. % i6. Kara-
Xoijo-TiKcus:, which is found here, occurs de Deer. § 6.
_ ^3 ovo-iai/' ovaio. toO A070U or toO yioi) is a familiar expression
with_Athan._ e.g. Orat. V. 45, ii. 7, 9, „, 12, 13, 18 init. 22,
^7 init. 56 mit. &c., for which Alex, in Theod. uses the word
VTrocrrao-is e.g. tV tSiorpoTroi/ avTou v;rocrTocrii/- t^s i;wo<rTd<rews
O.VT0V a.nef>i.ti>ya.arov' veuTepav tyjs virotndaeiai yive(nv' -i) Toi)
(lovoyevovi ay^KStriyriTOi uwd<rTaa«s" T'r)v toO koyov VTTocnaa-iv.
must prevail ; neither is there any "communion
of light with darkness," nor any " concord of
Christ with Belial ^4." For who ever heard such
assertions before 'S? or who that hears them
now is not astonished and does not stop his
ears lest they should be defiled with such lan-
guage? Who that has heard the words of John,
" In the beginning was the Word ^^," will not
denounce the saying of these men, that "there
was a time when He was not ? " Or who that
has heard in the Gospel, " the Only-begotten
Son," and "by Him w^re all things made ^7,"
will not detest their declaration that He is
" one of the things that were made." For how
can He be one of those things which were
made by Himself? or how can He be the
Only-begotten, when, according to them, He
is counted as one among the rest, since He
is Himself a creature and a work ? And how
can He be "made of things that were not,"
when the Father saith, " My heart hath
uttered a good Word," and " Out of the
womb I have begotten Thee before the morn-
ing star'^?" Or again, how is He "unlike in
substance to the Father," seeing He is the
perfect "image" and " brightness'9 " of the
Father, and that He saith, " He that hath
seen Me hath seen the Father ^° ? " And if the
Son is the " Word " and " Wisdom " of God,
how was there "a time when He was not?"
It is the same as if they should say that God
was once without Word and without Wisdom ^^
And how is He " subject to change and
variation," Who says, by Himself, " I am
in the Father, and the Father in Me ^°," and
"I and the Father are One ^°;" and by the
Prophet, " Behold Me, for I am, and I change
not ^^ ? " For although one may refer this ex-
pression to the Father, yet it may now be
more aptly spoken of the Word, viz., that
though He has been made man. He has not
changed ; but as the Apostle has said, " Jesus
Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for
ever." And who can have persuaded them
to say, that He was made for us, whereas
Paul writes, " for Whom are all things, and
by Whom are all things '^ ? "
'4 (2 Cor. vi. 14.) KOLvi^vta ^unC. This is quoted Alex. ap.
Theod. //. £. i. 3. p. 738 ; by S. Aihan. in Letter 47. It seems to
have been a received text in the controversy, as the Sardican
Council uses it, Apoi. Ar. 49, and S. Athan. seems to put it into
the mouth of St. Anthony, Vit. Ant. 69.
IS Tis yap ijKovcre. £/>. j^g. § 7 init. Letter ^(j. § 2 init. Orat. i.
8. Apot. contr. Ar. 85 init. Hist. Ar. § 46 init. § 73 init. § 74 init.
ad Scrap, iv. 2 init. '* John i. i.
'7 John i. 3, 14. »8 Ps. xlv. I. and ex. 3.
19 Heb. i. 3.
2° (Joh. xiv. 9, 10, X. 29.) On the concurrence of these three
texts in Athan. (though other writers use them too, and Alex,
'ap. Theod. has two of them), vid. note on Orat. i. 34.
21 akoyov Koi a<jo<pov Tov Sfov. de Deer. § 15. Orat. i. § 19.
Ap. Fug. 27. note, notes on Or. i. 19, de. Deer. 15, note 6.
=2 (Mai. iii. 6.) This text is thus applied by Athan. Orat. i. 30,
ii. 10. In the first of these passages he uses the .^ame apology,-
nearly in the same words, which is contained in the text.
23 Heb. xiii. 8, ii. 10.
4
DEPOSITION OF ARIUS.
71
4. As to their blasphemous position that "the
Son knows not the Father perfectly," we ought
not to wonder at it ; for having once set them-
selves to fight against Christ, they contradict
even His express words, since He says, "As
the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the
Father ^l" Now if the Father knows the Son
but in part, then it is evident that the Son
does not know the Father perfectly; but if
it is not lawful to say this, but the Father
does know the Son perfectly, then it is evident
that as the Father knows His own Word, so
also the Word knows His own Father Whose
Word He is.
5. By these arguments and references to the
sacred Scriptures we frequently overthrew
them ; but they changed like chameleons ^^,
and again shifted their ground, striving to
bring upon themselves that sentence, " when
the wicked falleth into the depth of evils,
he despiseth^^." There have been many
heresies before them, which, venturing fur-
ther than they ought, have fallen into folly ;
but these men by endeavouring in all
their cavils to overthrow the Divinity of
the Word, have justified the other in com-
parison of themselves, as approaching nearer
to Antichrist. Wherefore they have been
excommunicated and anathematized by the
Church. We grieve for their destruction, and
especially because, having once been instructed
in the doctrines of the Church, they have now
sprung away. Yet we are not greatly surprised,
for Hymenaeus and Philetus ^7 did the same,
and before them Judas, who followed the
Saviour, but afterwards became a traitor and
an apostate. And concerning these same
persons, we have not been left without in-
struction ; for our Lord has forewarned us ;
" Take heed lest any man deceive you : for
many shall come in My name, saying, I am
Christ, and the time draweth near, and they
shall deceive many : go ye not after them^^ ;"
While Paul, who was taught these things by
our Saviour, wrote, that " in the latter times
some shall depart from the sound faith, giving
heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of
devils, which reject the truth ^9."
6. Since then our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ has instructed us by His own mouth,
and also hath signified to us by the Apostle
concerning such men, we accordingly being
24 John X. 15.
*S ;(a/iatAe'oi/T6S. vid. de Deer, % i. Hist. Ar. § 79.
s6 Prov. xviii. 3 [cf. Orat. iii. i, c. Gent. 8. 4, &c.]
27 2 Tim. ii. 17. 28 Luke xxi. 8.
29 (i Tim. iv. I.) Into this text which Athan. also applies to the
Arians (cf. note on Or. i. 9.), Athan. also introduces,_like Alexander
here, the word uyiocouoTjs, e.g. Ej>. /Eg. §20, Orat. i. 8 fin. de Deer.
3, Hist. Arian. § 78 init. &c. It is quoted without the word by
Origen contr, Cels. v. 64, but with uvi'oOs in Maiih. X.. xiv. 16.
Epiphan. has vyiaij'ovcnjs SiSaaxaAios, Hcer. 78. 2. vycoi)? Stfi. ibid.
23. p. 1055.
personal witnesses of their impiety, have ana-
thematized, as we said, all such, and declared
them to be alien from the Catholic Faith and
Church. And we have made this known to
your piety, dearly beloved and most honoured
fellow-ministers, in order that should any of
them have the boldness 3° to come unto you,
you may not receive them, nor comply with
the desire of Eusebius, or any other person
writing in their behalf. For it becomes us
who are Christians to turn away from all who
speak or think any thing against Christ, as
being enemies of God, and destroyers 3^ of
souls; and not even to "bid such God speed 3^,"
lest we become partakers of their sins, as the
blessed John hath charged us. Salute the
brethren that are with you. They that are
with me salute you.
Presbyters of Alexandria.
7. I, Colluthus, Presbyter, agree with what
is here written, and give my assent to the
deposition of Arius and his associates in
impiety.
Alexander^, Presbyter,
likewise
Dioscorus ^', Presbyter,
likewise
Dionysius ^, Presbyter,
likewise
Eusebius, Presbyter, like-
wise
Alexander, Presbyter,
likewise
Nilaras ^, Presbyter, like-
wise
Arpocration, Presbyter,
likewise
Agathus, Presbyter
Nemesius, Presbyter
Longus ^^ Presbyter
Silvanus, Presbyter
Percys, Presbyter
Apis, Presbyter
Proterius, Presbyter
Paulus, Presbyter
Cyrus, Presbyter, likewise
Deacons.
Ammonius ^, Deacon,
likewise
Macarius, Deacon
Pistus^'', Deacon, likewise
Athanasius, Deacon
Eumenes, Deacon
Apollonius^*, Deacon
Olympius, Deacon
Aphthonius ^\ Deacon
Athanasius ^S Deacon
Macarius, Deacon, like-
wise
Paulus, Deacon
Petrus, Deacon
Ambytianus, Deacon
Gaius^^ Deacon, likewise
Alexander, Deacon
Dionysius, Deacon
Agathon, Deacon
Polybius, Deacon, like-
wise
Theonas, Deacon
Marcus, Deacon
Comodus, Deacon
Serapion^'', Deacon
Nilon, Deacon
Romanus, Deacon, like-
wise
30 irpoTreTev<raivTO. vid. de Deer. § 2.
31 ^eopias TMV >pvx^v. but S. Alex, in Theod. uses the com-
pound word 09opo7roi6s. p. 731. Other compound or recondite
words (to say nothing of the construction of sentences) found in
S. Alexander's Letter in Theod., and unlike the style of the Cir-
cular under review, are such as ri <^c'Aapxos Koi <j)Lka.pyvpoi Trpo9etTi.y
vpi<rTe|U.7ropiov (^pei/o^Aa^oi/s- WioTpoTrov Ofioo-Tot'xois (TvAAa^ais'^
eerjyopous a.no(TT6\ovv cLVTi.Bi.a.aTokrjV tt]S rraTptKrjs^ fiaieu(rea)S*
ueAavvoAiK^i/- (^lAofleos (ra<|)^veta ai/oo-ioupytas" (f>Kr]va.4>u>i> ixvet.w.
Instances of theological language in S. Alex, to which the Letter m
the text contains no resemblance _are_ axuipurra ivpa.yna.Ta. Svo'^
o v't'o's TTji/ Kara. navTO. 6ju.oi,orr)Ta. avToO ck <j)u'(Tec<)S aTrofiafa^iei/os'
&i €o-on-Tpou a/crjAiScirovKal iiJ.>jivxoy OeCas eUdi/os" iJ.e<ri.Tevova-a
Aliens Mofovevns' Tas TJj viro<rTa.<7ei. Svo </>vo-et?.
32 2 John 10. 33 Vid. Presbyters, A/oL Ar. 73.
34 Vid. Presbyters, ib.
72
DEPOSITIO ARIL
Presbyters cf the Mareotis.
I, ApoUonius, Presbyter, agree with what
is here written, and give my assent to the
deposition of Arius and his associates in
impiety.
Ingenius ^, Presbyter,
likewise
Ammonius, Presbyter
Dioscorus^*, Presbyter
Sostras, Presbyter
Theon'*^, Presbyter
Tyrannus, Presbyter
Copres, Presbyter
Ammonas ^^, Presbyter
Orion, Presbyter
Serenus, Presbyter
Didymus, Presbyter
Heracles ^^, Presbyter
Boccon ^^, Presbyter
Agathus, Presbyter
Achillas, Presbyter
Paulus, Presbyter
ThalelEeus, Presbyter
Dionysius, Presbyter, like-
wise
35 Apol. Ar. 75.
36 Heracliusf ib-
Deacons.
Sarapion ^'', Deacon, like-
wise
Justus, Deacon, likewise
Didymus, Deacon
Demetrius^', Deacon
Maurus •*^, Deacon
Alexander, Deacon
Marcus 3', Deacon
Comon, Deacon
Tryphon^?, Deacon
Ammonius^', Deacon
Didymus, Deacon
Ptollarion ^^, Deacon
Seras, Deacon
Gaius ^^ , Deacon
Hierax^^, Deacon
Marcus, Deacon
Theonas, Deacon
Savmaton, Deacon
Carpon, Deacon
Zoilus, Deacon, likewise
> lb.
EPISTOLA EUSEBII
INTRODUCTION.
The letter which follows, addressed by Eusebius of Caesarea to his flock, upon the con-
clusion of the great Synod, is appended by Athanasius to his defence of the Definition of
Nicaea {de Decreiis), written about a.d. 350. It is, however, inserted here in the present
edition, partly in accordance with the chronological principle of arrangement, but principally
because it forms the fittest introduction to the series of treatises which follow. Along with
the account of Eustathius in Theodoret H. E. i. 8, and that given by Eusebius, in his life
of Constantine (vol. i. pp. 521 — 526 of this series), it forms one of our most important
authorities for the proceedings at Nicaea, and the only account we have dating from the
actual year of the Council. It is especially important as containing the draft Creed submitted
to the Council by Eusebius, and the revised form of it eventually adopted The former,
which contained (in the first paragraph of § 3, from ' We believe ' down to ' One Holy
Ghost') the traditional Creed of the Church of Caesarea, which Eusebius had pro-
fessed at his baptism, was laid by him before the Council, and approved: but at the
Emperor's suggestion the single word ojxoovaiov was inserted (not by ' the majority ' as distinct
from the Emperor, as stated by Swainson, Creeds, p. 65). This modification opened the
door for others, which eventually resulted in the Creed given in § 4. It is not altogether easy
to reconcile this account with that given by Athanasius himself (below de Deer. 19, 20,
Ad Afr. 5), according to which the Council were led to insist on the insertion of the ofioovcriov
by the evasions with which the Arian bishops met every other test that was propounded,
signalling to each other by nods winks and gestures, as each Scriptural attribute of the Son
was enumerated, that this also could be accepted in an Arian sense. Probably (see Prolegg.
ch. ii. § 3 (i) note 5) the discussions thus described came first (cp. Sozom. i, 17) : then
Eusebius of Nicomedia presented the document which was indignantly torn up : then came
the Confession of Eusebius of Csesarea, which was adopted as the basis of the Creed finally
issued. In any case, the Emperor's suggestion of the insertion of Sfiooiaiov must have been
prompted by others, most likely by Hosius (Hi'sf. Ar. 42, Cf. Hort, Two Dissertations, p. 58.
Gwatkin, Studies, pp. 44, 45, puts the scene described by Athanasius during the debate upon
the final adoption of the Creed).
The translation which follows, with the notes and Excursus A, is the unaltered work
of Newman (Library of the Fathers, vol. 8, pp. 59-72), except that the word ' essence' (for
ovo-t'a), as throughout this volume, has been substituted for 'substance,' and the translation
of yevriTos by ' generate ' altered wherever it occurs, as explained in the preface. Additions
by the editor of this volume are here as elsewhere included in square brackets.
COUNCIL OF NIC^A:
Letter ofEusebius ofCcesarea to the people of his
Diocese ^.
I. What was transacted concerning ecclesi-
astical faith at the Great Council assembled at
Nicaea, you have probably learned, Beloved,
from other sources, rumour being wont to pre-
cede the accurate account of what is doing.
But lest in such reports the circumstances of
the case have been misrepresented, we have
been obliged to transmit to you, first, the
formula of faith presented by ourselves, and
next, the second, which [the Fathers] put forth
with some additions to our words. Our own
paper, then, which was read in the presence of
our most pious ^ Emperor, and declared to be
good and unexceptionable, ran thus : —
2. " As we have received from the Bishops
who preceded us, and in our first catechisings,
and when we received the Holy Laver, and as
we have learned from the divine Scriptures,
and as we believed and taught in the presby-
tery, and in the Episcopate itself, so beheving
also at the time present, we report to you our
faith, and it is this 3; —
3. "We believe in One God, the Father
» This Letter is also found in Socr. H. E. i. 8. Theod. H. E. i.
Gelas. Hist. Nzc. ii. 34. p. 442. Niceph. Hist. viii. 22.
2 And so infr. "most pious," § 4. "most wise and most re-
ligious," ibid, "most religious," § 8. § 10. Eusebius observes in
his Vit. Const, the same tone concerning Constantine, and assigns
to him the same office in determining the faith (being as yet un-
baptized). E.g. "When there were differences between persons
of different countries, as if some common bishop appointed by God,
he convened Councils of God's ministers ; and not disdaining to be
present and to sit amid their conferences," &c. i. 44. When he
came into the Nicene Council, "it was," says Eusebius, "as some
heavenly Angel of God," iii. 10. alluding to the brilliancy of the
imperial purple. He confesses, however, he did not sit down until
the Bishops bade him. Again at the same Council^ "with pleasant
eyes looking serenity itself into them all, collecting himself, and
in a quiet and gentle voice" he made an oration to the Fathers
upon peace. Constantine had been an instrument in conferring
such vast benefits, humanly speaking, on the Christian Body, that
it is not wonderful that other writers of the day besides Eusebius
should praise him. Hilary speaks of him as " of sacred memory,"
Fragm. v. init. Athanasius calls him "most pious," Afiol. contr.
Arian. 9 ;_ " of blessed memory," ad Ep. yEg. 18. 19. Epiphanius
"rnost religious and of ever-blessed memory," Har. 70. 9. Pos-
terity, as was natural, was still more grateful.
3 " The children of the Church have received from their holy
Fathers, that is, the holy Apostles, to guard the faitli ; and withal
to_ deliver and preach it to their own children. . . . Cease not,
faithful aud orthodox men, thus to speak, and to teach the like
from the divine Scriptures, and to walk, and to catechise, to the
confirmation of yourselves and those who hear you ; namely, that
holy faith of the Catholic Church, as the holy and only Virgin
of God received its custody from the holy Apostles of the Lord ;
and thus, in the case of each of those who are under catechising,
who are to approach the Holy Laver, ye ought not only to preach
Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and
invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the
Word of God, God from God, Light from Light,
Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born
of every creature, before all the ages, begotten
from the Father, by Whom also all things were
made ; Who for our salvation was made flesh,
and lived among men, and suffered, and rose
again the third day, and ascended to the
Father, and will come again in glory to judge
the quick and dead. And we believe also in
One Holy Ghost :
"beheving each of these to be and to exist,
the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son,
and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also
our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the
preaching, said, " Go teach all nations, bap-
tizing them in the Name of the Father and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost 4." Concern-
ing Whom we confidently affirm that so we
hold, and so we think, and so we have held
aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the
death, anathematizing every godless heresy.
That this we have ever thought from our heart
and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves,
and now think and say in truth, before God
Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we
witness, being able by proofs to shew and to
convince you, that, even in times past, such
has been our belief and preaching."
4. On this faith being publicly put forth by
us,. no room for contradiction appeared; but
our most pious Emperor, before any one else,
testified that it comprised most orthodox state-
faith to your children in the Lord, but also to teach them expressly,
as your common mother teaches, to say : ' We believe in One
God,'" &c. Epiph. Ancor. 119 fin., who thereupon proceeds to give
at length the [so-calledj Constantinopolitan Creed. And so Athan.
speaks of the orthodox faith, as " issuing from Apostol ical teachingand
the Fathers' tradition, and confirmed by New and Old Testament."
Letter 60. 6. init. Cyril Hier. too as "declared by the Church
and established from all Scripture." Cat. v. 12. " Let us guard
with vigilance what we have received. . , . What then have we
received from the Scriptures but altogether this ? that God made
the world by the Word," &c., &c. Procl. ad Armen. p. 612. "That
God, the Word, after the union remained such as He was, &c.,
so clearly hath divine Scripture, and moreover the doctors of the
Churches, and the lights of the world taught us." Theodor. Dial.
3 init. "That it is the tradition of the Fathers is not the whole
of our case ; for they too followed the meaning of Scripture, starting
from the testimonies, which just now we laid before you from
Scripture." Basil de Sp. § 16. vid. also a remarkable passage in de
Synod. § 6 fin. infra.
4 Matt, xxviii. 19.
COUNCIL OF NIC^A.
75
ments. He confessed moreover that such were
his own sentiments, and he advised all present
to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and
to assent to them, with the insertion of the
single word, One-in-essence, which moreover
he interpreted as not in the sense of the affec-
tions of bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted
from the Father in the way of division, or any
severance ; for that the immaterial, and intel-
lectual, and incorporeal nature could not be the
subject of any corporeal affection, but that it
became us to conceive of such things in
a divine and ineffable manner. And such
were the theological remarks of our most wise
and most religious Emperor ; but they, with
a view 4a to the addition of One in essence,
drew up the following formula : —
The Faith dictated in the Council.
"We believe in One God, the Father Al-
mighty, Maker of all things visible and invisi-
ble :—
" And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten,
that is, from the essence of the Father ; God
from God, Light from Light, Very God from
Very God, begotten not made. One in essence
with the Father, by Whom all things were
made, both things in heaven and things in
earth ; Who for us men and for our salvation
came down and was made flesh, was made
man, suffered, and rose again the third day,
ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge
quick and dead.
" And in the Holy Ghost.
"And those who say, 'Once He was not,'
and ' Before His generation He was not,' and
' He came to be from nothing,' or those who
pretend that the Son of God is ' Of other sub-
sistence or essence "t^' or 'created,' or 'alter-
able,' or ' mutable,' the Catholic Church anathe-
matizes."
5. On their dictating this formula, we did
not let it pass without inquiry in what sense
they introduced " of the essence of the Father,"
and "one in essence with the Father." Ac-
cordingly questions antl explanations took
place, and the meaning of the words under-
went the scrutiny of reason. And they pro-
fessed, that the phrase "of the essence" was
indicative of the Son's being indeed from the
Father, yet without being as if a part of Him.
And with this understanding we thought good
to assent to the sense of such religious doc-
trine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from
4» [Or, ' taking the addition as theii pretext.']
4*" The only clauses of the Creed which admit of any question
in their explanation, are the " He was not before HTs generation,"
and "of other subsistence or essence. ' Of these the former shall
be reserved for a later part of the volume ; the latter is treated
of in a note at the end of this Treatise [see Excursus A.].
the Father, not however a part of His essences.
On this account we assented to the sense our-
selves, without declining even the term " One
in essence," peace being the object which we
set before us, and stedfastness in the orthodox
view.
6. In the same way we also admitted *' be-
gotten, not made;" since the Council alleged
that " made " was an appellative common to
the other creatures which came to be through
the Son, to whom the Son had no likeness.
Wherefore, say they, He was not a work resem-
bling the things which through Him came to
be ^, but was of an essence which is too high
for the level of any work ; and which the Divine
oracles teach to have been generated from the
Father 7, the mode of generation being inscrut-
able and incalculable to every originated
nature.
7. And so too on examination there are
S Eusebius does not commit himself to any positive sense in
which the formula "'of the essence" is to be interpreted, but only
says what it does not mean. His comment on it is ''of the Father,
but not as a part ;" where, what is not negative, instead of being
an explanation, is but a recurrence to the original words of Scrip-
ture, of which ef oiicria^ itself is the explanation; a curious inver-
sion. Indeed it is very doubtful whether he admitted the ef oucriaj
at all. He says, that the Son is not like the radiance of light so far
as this, that the radiance is an inseparable accident of substance,
whereas the Son is by the Father's will, /cixra yvuifx-qv Koi Trpoatpecrii',
Demonstr. Ev. iv. 3. And though he insists on our Lord being
alone, ix Oioii, yet he means in the sense which Athan. refutes,
supr. § 6, viz. that He alone was created immediately from God,
vid. next note 6. It is true that he plainly condemns with the
Nicene Creed the ef ouk oi/tuji/ of the Arians, "out of nothing,"'
but an evasion was at hand here also ; for he not only adds, accord-
ing to Arian custom, "as others" (vid. note following) but he has
a theory that no being whatever is out of nothing, for non-existence
cannot be the cause of existence. God, he says, "proposed His own
will and power as ' a sort of matter and substance' of the production
and constitution of the universe, so that it is not reasonably said,
that any thing is out of nothing. For what is from nothing cannot
be at all. How indeed can nothing be to any thing a cause of being?'
but all tliat is, takes its hc'mg/rom One who only is, and was, who
also said, ' I am that I am.' " Demonstr. Ev. iv. i. Again, speak-
ing of our Lord, " He who was from nothing would not truly be
Son of God, ' as neither is any other of things generate." " Eccl.
Theol. i. 9 fin. [see, however, D.C.B. ii. p. 347].
<= Eusebius distinctly asserts, Dem. Ev. iv. 2, that our Lord
is a creature. "This offspring," he says, "did He first produce
Himself from Himself as a foundation of those things which should
succeed, the perfect handy-work, 6ij^iiovpyr)na, of the Perfect, and
the wise structure, ap^'TeKTOcriMa, of the Wise," &c. Accordingly
his avowal in the text is but the ordinary Arian evasion of "an
offspring, not as the offsprings." E.g. "It is not without peril
to say recklessly that the Son is originate out of nothing ' similarly to
the other things originate.' " Dem. Ev. v. i. vid. also Eccl. Theol.
i. 9. iii. 2. And he considers our Lord the only Son by a divine
provision similar to that by which there is only one sun in the fir-
mament, as a centre of light and heat. " Such an Only-begotten
Son, the excellent artificer of His will and operator, did the supreme
God and Father of that operator Himself first of all beget, through
Him and in Him giving subsistence to the operative words (ideas
or causes) of things which were to be, and casting in Him the seeds
of the constitution and governance of the universe ; . . . Therefore
the Father being One, it behoved the Son to be one also ; but
should any one object that He constituted not more, it is fitting for
such a one to complain that He constituted not^ more suns, and
moons, and worlds, and ten thousand other things." Dem. Ev. iv.
5 fin. vid. also iv. 6. ,.,,,, /•..
7 Eusebius does not say that our Lord is "from the essence ot
the Father, but has "an essence from" the Father. This is the
Semi-arian doctrine, which, whether confessing the Son from the
essence of the Father or not, implied that His essence was not
the Father's essence, but a second essence. The same doctrine
is found in the Semi-arians of Ancyra, though they seem to have
confessed "of the essence." And this is one object of the 6/iOov-
o-io^, to hinder the confession "of the essence" from implying
a second essence, which was not obviated or was even encouraged
by the o/aotou<rioi/. The Council of Ancyra, quoting the text
" As the Father hath life in Himself, so," cS:c., says, "since the life
which is in the Father means essence, and the life of the Only-
begotten which is begotten from the Father means essence, the
1^
EPISTOLA EUSEBII.
grounds for saying that the Son is "one in
essence " with the Father ; not in the way of
bodies, nor Hke mortal beings, for He is not
such by division of essence, or by severance,
no nor by any affection, or alteration, or
changing of the Father's essence and power ^
(since from all such the unoriginate nature of
the Father is alien), but because "one in es-
sence with the Father " suggests that the Son
of God bears no resemblance to the originated
creatures, but that to His Father alone Who
begat Him is He in every way assimilated, and
that He is not of any other subsistence and
essence, but from the Father 9. To which term
also, thus interpreted, it appeared well to as-
sent ; since we were aware that even among
the ancients, some learned and illustrious
Bishops and writers ' have used the term " one
in essence," in their theological teaching con-
cerning the Father and Son.
8. So much then be said concerning the
faith which was published ; to which all of us
assented, not without inquiry, but according to
the specified senses, mentioned before the most
religious Emperor himself, and justified by the
forementioned considerations. And as to the
word ' so ' implies a likeness of essence to essence." Hcer. 73. 10 fin.
Hence Eusebius does not scruple to speak of "two essences," and
other writers of three essences, contr. Marc. i. 4. p. 25. He calls
our Lord "a second essence." Dem. Ev. vi. Prcef. Prcep. Ev. vii.
12. p. 320, and the Holy Spirit a third essence, ibid. 15. p. 325.
This it was that made the Latins so suspicious of three hypostases,
because the Semi-arians, as well as they, understood uiroo-Tao-is to
mean essence [but this is dubious]. Eusebius in like manner
[after Origen] calls our Lord "another God," "a second God."
Dem. Ev. v. 4. p. 226. v. fin. "second Lord." ibid. 3 init.
6. fin. " second cause." Dem. Ev. v. Prof. vid. also hepov
«Xou<ra TO (car' ovatav inroKeCniVov, Dem. Ev. v. i. p. 215.
Koff iavTOv ova-Lui/xevo^. ibid. iv. 3. And so erepos trapa tov
iraripa. Eccl. Theol. i. 60. p. 90. and ^corji/ W1.0.V ixiav. ibid, and
ioji; Kttl v<f>ea-Tibi Koi ToOn-arpb; vnapx'ov «ktoj. ibid. Hence Athan.
insists so much, as in tie Deer., on our Lord not being external
to the Father. Once admit that He is in the i*ather, and we may
call the Father, the only God, for He is included. And so again as
to the Ingenerate, the term does not exclude the Son, for He is
generate in the Ingenerate.
8 This was the point on which the Semi-arians made their
principal stand against the "one in essence," though they also
objected to_ it as being of a Sabellian character. E.g. Euseb.
Demonstr. iv. 3. p. 148. d.p. 149. a, b. v. i. pp. 213 — 215. contr.
Marcell. i. 4. p._ 20. Eccl. Theol. i. 12. p. 73. in laud. Const.
p. 525. de Fide i.ap. Sirmond. torn. i. p. 7. de Fide ii. p. 16,
and apparently his de Incorporali. And so the Semi-arians at
Ancyra, Epiph. Hcer. 73. 11. p. 858. a, b. And so Meletius,
ibid. p. 878 fin. and Cyril Hier. Catech. vii. 5. xi. 18. though of
course Catholics would speak as strongly on this point as their
opponents.
9 Here again Eusebius does not say "from the Father's es-
sence," but not from other essence, but from the Father." Ac-
cording to note 5, supr. he considered the will of God a certain
matter or substance. Montfaucon in loc. and Collect. Nov. Praef.
p. xxvi. translates without warrant "ex Patris hypostasi et sub-
stantia." As to the Son's perfect likeness to the Father which
he seems here to grant, it has been already shewn, de Deer. 20,
note 9, how the admission was evaded. The likeness was but
a likeness after its own kind, as a picture is of the original.
I' Though our Saviour Himself teaches, ' he says, "that the Father
is the ' only true God,'_still let me not be backward to confess Him
also the true God, ' as in an image,' and that possessed ; so that the
addition of ' only ' may belong to the Father alone as archetype
of the image .... As, supposing one king held sway, and his image
was carried about into every quarter, no one in liis right mind
would say that those who held sway were two, but one who was
honoured through his image ; in like manner," &c. de Eccles.
Theol. ii. 23, vid. ibid. 7.
I Athanasius in like manner, ad Afros. 6. speaks of " testimony
of ancient Bishops about 130 years since ;" and in de Syn. § 43. of
" lon| before " the Council of Antioch, A.D. 269. viz. the Dionysii ,
&C. vid. note on de Deer. zo.
anathematism published by them at the end of
the Faith, it did not pain us, because it forbade
to use words not in Scripture, from which almost
all the confusion and disorder of the Church
have come. Since then no divinely inspired
Scripture has used the phrases, "out of nothing,"
and "once He was not," and the rest which
follow, there appeared no ground for using or
teaching them ; to which also we assented as a
good decision, since it had not been our custom
hitherto to use these terms.
9, Moreover to anathematize "Before His
generation He was not," did not seem prepos-
terous, in that it is confessed by all, that the
Son of God was before the generation accord-
ing to the flesh ^
10. Nay, our most religious Emperor did at
the time prove, in a speech, that He was in
being even according to His divine generation
which is before all ages, since even before He
was generated in energy. He was in virtue 3 with
the Father ingenerately, the Father being always
Father, as King always, and Saviour always,
being all things in virtue, and being always in
the same respects and in the same way.
IT. This we have been forced to transmit to
you, Beloved, as making clear to you the
deliberation of our inquiry and assent, and how
reasonably we resisted even to the last minute
as long as we were offended at statements
which differed from our own, but received with-
out contention what no longer pained us, as
soon as, on a candid examination of the sense
of the words, they appeared to us to coincide
with what we ourselves have professed in the
faith which we have already published.
8 Socrates, who advocates the orthodoxy of Eusebius, leaves
out this heterodox paragraph [§§ 9, 10] altogether. Bull, however,
Defens. F. N. iii. 9. n. 3. thinks it an interpolation. Athanasius
alludes to the early part of the clause, supr. § 4. and de Syn. § 13.
where he says, that Eusebius implied that the Arians denied even
our Lord's existence before His incarnation. As to Constantine,
he seems to have been used on these occasions by the court Bishops
who were his instructors, and who made him the organ of their own
heresy. Upon the first rise of the Arian controversy he addressed a
sort of pastoral letter to Alexander and Arius, telling them that they
were disputing about a question of words, and recommending them
to drop it and live together peaceably. Euseb. vit. C. ii. 69. 72.
3 [Rather ' potentially both liere and three lines below.]
Theognis, [one] of the Nicene Arians, says the same, accord-
ing to Pliilostorgius ; viz. "that God even before He begat the
Son was a Father, as having the power, ^ucapni, of begetting."
Hist. ii. 15. Though Bull pronounces such doctrine to be heretical,
as of course it is, still he considers that it expresses what otherwise
stated may be orthodox, viz. the doctrine that our Lord was called
the Word from eternity, and the Son upon His descent to create
the worlds. And he acutely and ingeniously interprets the Arian
formula, " Before His generation He was not," to support this view.
Another opportunity will occur of giving an opinion upon this
question ; meanwhile, the parallel on which the heretical doctrine
is supported in the text is answered by many writers, on the ground
that Father and Son are words of nature, but Creator, King,
Saviour, are external, or what may be called accidental to Him.
Thus Athanasius observes, that Father actually implies Son, but
Creator only the power to create, as expressing a ^liva/Ltt; ; "a
maker is before his works, but he who says Father, forthwith in
Father implies the existence of the Son." Oral. iii. § 6. vid. Cyril
too, Dial. ii. p. 459. Pseudo- Basil, contr. Etm. iv. i. fin. On the
other hand Origen argues the reverse way, that since God is eter-
nally a Father, therefore eternally Creator also: "As one cannot
be father without a son, nor lord without possession, so neither can
God be called All-powerful, without subjects of His power;''
de Princ. i. 2. n. 10. hence he argued for the eternity of matter.
EXCURSUS* A.
On the meaning of the phrase ef krlpas viroo-Tdaem r) ovaias
in the Nicene Anathema.
Bishop Bull has made it a question, whether these words in the Nicene Creed mean the
sanie thing, or are to be considered distinct from each other, advocating himself the latter
opinion against Petavius. The history of the word vTroVrao-ty is of too intricate a character
to enter upon here; but a few words may be in place in illustration of its sense as it occurs in
the Creed, and with reference to the view taken of it by the great divine, who has commented
on it.
Bishop Bull, as I understood him {JDefens. R N. ii. 9. § n.), considers that two distinct
ideas are intended by the words ovuia and vnoffTams, in the clause e^ irepas xmovravetes ^ ova-las •
as if the Creed condemned those who said that the Son was not from the Father's essence,
and those also who said that He was not from the Father's hypostasis or subsistence ; as if
a man might hold at least one of the two without holding the other. And in matter of fact, he
does profess to assign two parties of heretics, who denied this or that proposition respectively.
Petavius, on the other hand {de Trin. iv. i.), considers that the word viroaraa-is is but
another term for oiaia, and that not two but one proposition is contained in the clause in
question ; the word vTroaraais not being publicly recognised in its present meaning till the
Council of Alexandria, in the year 362. Coustant. i^Epist. Pont. Rom. pp. 274. 290, 462.)
Tillemont {Memoires S. Denys. d'Alex. § 15.), Huet {Origenian. ii. 2. n. 3.), Thomassin {de
Jncarn. iii. i.), and Morinus {de Sacr, Ordin. ii. 6.), take substantially the same view; while
Maranus {Prcef. ad S. Basil. § i. tom. 3. ed. Bened.), Natalis Alexander, Hist. (Ssec. i. Diss. 22.
circ. fin.), Burton {Testimonies to the Trinity, No. 71), and [Routh] {Reliqu. Sacr. vol. iiL
p. 189.), differ from Petavius, if they do not agree with Bull.
Bull's principal argument lies in the strong fact, that S. Basil expressly asserts, that the
Council did mean the two terms to be distinct, and this when he is answering the Sabellians,
who grounded their assertion that there was but one vTrdCTTao-tr, on the alleged fact that the
Council had used olala and vnoorraais indifferently.
Bull refers also to Anastasius Hodeg. 21. (22. p. 343. ?) who says, that the Nicene Fathers
defined that there are three hypostases or Persons in the Holy Trinity. Petavius considers
that he derived this from Gelasius of Cyzicus, a writer of no great authority ; but, as the
passage occurs in Anastasius, they are the words of Andrew of Samosata. But what is more
important, elsewhere Anastasius quotes a passage from Amphilochius to something of the same
effect, c. 10. p. 164. He states it besides himself, c. 9. p. 150. and c, 24. p. 364. In addition.
Bull quotes passages from S. Dionysius of Alexandria, S. Dionysius of Rome (vid. below,
de Deer. 25 — 27 and notes), Eusebius of Caesarea, and afterwards Origen ; in all of which three
hypostases being spoken of, whereas antiquity, early or late, never speaks in the same way of
three ova'iai, it is plain that vitoaraun then conveyed an idea which oha'ia did not To these
may be added a passage in Athanasius, in Illud, Omnia, § 6,
4 [This excursus supports the view taken above, Prolegg. ch. ii.
§ 3 (2) b ; the student should supplement Newman's discussion
by Zabn Marcellus and Harnack Dogmengesch. as quoted at the
head of that section of the Prolegg. The word 'Semi-arian' is
used in a somewhat inexact sense in this excursus, see Prolesg.
ch. ii. § 3 (2) c, and § 8 (2) c]
78 EXCURSUS ON THE WORD HYPOSTASIS
Bishop Bull adds the following explanation of the two words as they occur in the Creed :
he conceives that the one is intended to reach the Arians, and the other the Semi-arians ; that
the Semi-arians did actually make a distinction between oiia-ia and vnoa-Taa-is, admitting in
a certain sense that the Son was from the vTroarraa-is of the Father, while they denied that He
was from His oltrin. They then are anathematized in the words e$ irepas ova-las ; and, as he
would seem to mean, the Arians in the e^ irepas iiroa-Tdaem.
Now I hope it will not be considered any disrespect to so great an authority, if I differ
from this view, and express my reasons for doing so.
1. First then, supposing his account of the Semi-arian doctrine ever so free from objection,
granting that they denied the e^ oia-ias, and admitted the e$ {-Troorao-ewy, yet wAo are they who,
according to his view, denied the e'l in-oo-rdo-ecof, or said that the Son was e'^ kripas vnoaTaaeccs ?
he does not assign any parties, though he implies the Arians. Yet though, as is notorious, they
denied the e'^ ovaias, there is nothing to shew that they or any other party of Arians maintained
specifically that the Son was not [from] the uTroorao-ty, or subsistence of the Father. That is, the
hypothesis supported by this eminent divine does not answer the very question which it raises.
It professes that those who denied the f^ vnoa-Tdaews, were not the same as those who denied
the e'^ oia-ias ; yet it fails to tell us who did deny the e| vnoa-Tdaeas, in a sense distinct from i^
oiKTias.
2. Next, his only proof that the Semi-arians did hold the i^ vnoaTaa-eas as distinct from the
€^ ovaias, lies in the circumstance, that the three (commonly called) Semi-arian confessions of
A.D. 341, 344, 351, known as Mark's of Arethusa [i.e. the 'fourth Antiochene '], the Macros-
tich, and the first Sirmian, anathematize those who say that the Son is e^ hipas vnoa-Tdaeas
Ka\ fifi iK rov 0€ov, not anathematizing the e^ trepas ova-las, which he thence infers was their own
belief. Another explanation of this passage will be offered presently ; meanwhile, it is well
to observe, that Hilary, in speaking of the confession of Philippopolis which was taken from
Mark's, far from suspecting that the clause involved an omission, defends it on \h^ ground of its
retaining the Anathema [de Synod. 35.), thus implying that e| hepas vnoaTda-ecas Ka\ pf) ex rov deoi
was equivalent to e^ iripas vnoaTdaeas fj ovalas. And it may be added, that Athanasius in like
manner, in his account of the Nicene Council {de Decret. § 20. fin.), when repeating its
anathema, drops the f| vnoardafcos altogether, and reads roiis 8f Xeyojrar e| ovk ovtwv ^
noirjpa, jj e^ erepas ovalas, tovtovs dvadffiaTl^ei k. t. X.
3. Further, Bull gives us no proof whatever that the Semi-arians did deny the €$ ova-las ;
while it is very clear, if it is right to contradict so great a writer, that most of them did not deny
it. He says that it is " certissimum " that the heretics who wrote the three confessions above
noticed, that is, the Semi-arians, " mmquam fassos, nunquam fassuros fuisse filium e| ova-las,
e substantia, Patris progenitum." His reason for not offering any proof for this naturally is,
that Petavius, with whom he is in controversy, maintains it also, and he makes use of Petavius's
admission against himself Now it may seem bold in a writer of this day to differ not only
with Bull, but with Petavius ; but the reason for doing so is simple ; it is because Athanasius
asserts the very thing which Petavius and Bull deny, and Petavius admits that he does ; that is,
he allows it by implication when he complains that Athanasius had not got to the bottom of
the doctrine of the Semi-arians, and thought too favourably of them. " Horum Semi-arianorum,
quorum antesignanus fuit Basilius Ancyrae episcopus, prorsus obscura fuit haeresis ut ne
ipse quidem Athanasius satis illam exploratam habuerit." de Trin. i. x. § 7.
Now S. Athanasius's words are most distinct and express ; " As to those who receive all
else that was defined at Nicasa, but dispute about the ' One in essence ' only, we must not
feel as towards enemies .... for, as confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father
and not of other subsistence, Ik ttjs ovalas rov naTpos eivai, Ka\ p.fj e^ ertpas vnoaTaaeoos top vlov, . . .
they are not far from receiving the phrase 'One in essence' also. Such is Basil of Ancyra,
in what he has written about the faith " de Syn. § 41 ; — a passage, not only express for
IN THE NICENE ANATHEMA. 79
the matter in hand, but remarkable too, as apparently using vnoa-raais and ova-la as synonymous,
which is the main point which Bull denies. What follows in Athanasius is equally to the
purpose : he urges the Semi-arians to accept the Sfioovaiov, in consistency, because they
maintain the l^ ola-ias and the dfioiova-mv would not sufficiently secure it.
Moreover Hilary, while defending the Semi-arian decrees of Ancyra or Sirmium, says
expressly, that according to them, among other truths, " non creatura est Filius genitus, sed
a natura Patris indiscreta substantia est." de Syn. 27.
Petavius, however, in the passage to which Bull appeals, refers in proof of this view of
Semi-arianism, to those Ancyrene documents, which Epiphanius has preserved, Hcer. 73. and
which he considers to shew, that according to the Semi-arians the Son was not i^ oia-ias rov
irarpos. He says, that it is plain from their own explanations that they considered our Lord to
be, not fK rrjs ova-ias, but eK ttjs SfioiorrjTOS (he does not say vnoa-rdafcos, aS Bull wishes) Tov irarphs
and that, hepyeia ytvvijTiKTj, which was one of the divine ivepyeiai, as creation, 17 ktkttikt], was
another. Yet surely Epiphanius does not bear out this representation better than Athanasius ;
since the Semi-arians, whose words he reports, speak of " vlov ofxaiov koI kot' olalav « tov narpos,
p. 825 b. Ids fj (Tocjiia tov (ro(f)ov vios, ovaia ovalas, p. 853 C, kut olvlav vlov tov Beov Ka\ Trarpos,
p. 854 C, i^ovaia ofiov koli oia-iq naTpos fiovoyevovs vlov. p. 858 d, besides the Strong WOrd ywjo-tor,
ibid, and Athan. de Syn. § 41. not to insist on other of their statements.
The same fact is brought before us even in a more striking way in the conference at Con-
stantinople, A.D. 360, before Constantius, between the Anomceans and Semi-arians, where the
latter, according to Theodoret, shew no unwillingness to acknowledge even the Sfiooixnov,
because they acknowledge the l^ ova-las. When the Anomceans wished the former condemned,
Silvanus of Tarsus said, "If God the Word be not out of nothing, nor a creature, nor of other
essence, ova-las, therefore is He one in essence, 6p.oovai.os, with God who begot Him, as God
from God, and Light from Light, and He has the same nature with His Father." If. E. ii. 23.
Here again it is observable, as in the passage from Athanasius above, that, while apparently
reciting the Nicene Anathema, he omits e| eVcpas vTroaTaaeas, as if it were superfluous to mention
a synonym.
At the same time there certainly is reason to suspect that the Semi-arians approximated
towards orthodoxy as time went on ; and perhaps it is hardly fair to determine what they held
at Nic»a by their statements at Ancyra, though to the latter Petavius appeals. Several of the
most eminent among them, as Meletius, Cyril, and Eusebius of Samosata conformed soon after ;
on the other hand in Eusebius, who is their representative at Nicsea, it will perhaps be difficult
to find a clear admission of the e| ovalas. But at any rate he does not maintain the f$ vno-
aToa-ews, which Bull's theory requires.
On various grounds then, because the Semi-arians as a body did not deny the f| oialas,
nor confess the i^ vTrooTuafas, nor the Arians deny it, there is reason for declining Bishop Bull's
explanation of these words as they occur in the Creed ; and now let us turn to the consideration
of the authorities on which that explanation rests.
As to Gelasius, Bull himself does not insist upon his testimony, and Anastasius [about
700 A.D.] is too late to be of authority. The passage indeed which he quotes from Amphi-
lochius is important, but as he was a friend of S. Basil, perhaps it does not very much increase
the weight of S. Basil's more distinct and detailed testimony to the same point, and no one
can say that that weight is inconsiderable.
Yet there is evidence the other way which overbalances it. Bull, who complains of
Petavius's rejection of S. Basil's testimony concerning a Council which was held before his
birth, cannot maintain his own explanation of its Creed without rejecting Athanasius's testimony
respecting the doctrine of his contemporaries, the Semi-arians ; and moreover the more direct
evidence, as we shall see, of the Council of Alexandria, a.d. 362, S. Jerome, Basil of Ancyra,
and Socrates.
So EXCURSUS ON THE WORD HYPOSTASIS
First, however, no better comment upon the sense of the Council can be required than the
incidental language of Athanasius and others, who in a foregoing extract exchanges dcria for
vTToaTaa-is in a way which is natural only on the supposition that he used them as synonyms.
Elsewhere, as we have seen, he omits the word fj vnoa-Tda-eas in the Nicene Anathema, while
Hilary considers the Anathema sufficient with that omission. . i|
In like manner Hilary expressly translates the clause in the Creed by ex altera substantia
vel essentia. Fragm. ii. 27. And somewhat in the same way Eusebius says in his letter, e^
frepai rtvbs UTroerracrecoy re Kai oxxrias.
But further, Athanasius says expressly, ad A/ros, — "Hypostasis is essence, ovtrta, and
means nothing else than simply being, which Jeremiah calls existence when he says," &c. § 4.
It is true, he elsewhere speaks of three Hypostases, but this only shews that he attached no
fiixed sense to the word. [Rather, he abandons the latter usage in his middle and later
writings.] This is just what I would maintain ; its sense must be determined by the context ;
and, whereas it always stands in all Catholic writers for the Una Res (as the 4th Lateran
speaks), which ola-ia denotes, when Athanasius says, " three hypostases," he takes the word
to mean oiaia in that particular sense in which it is three, and when he makes it synony-
mous with ova-ia, he uses it to signify Almighty God in that sense in which He is one.
Leaving Athanasius, we have the following evidence concerning the history of the word
vTrotTTaa-is. S. Jerome says, " The whole school of secular learning understanding nothing else
by hypostasis than usia, essence," £p. xv. 4, where, speaking of the Three Hypostases he
uses the strong language, " If you desire it, then be a new faith framed after the Nicene, and
let the orthodox confess in terms like the Arian."
In like manner, Basil of Ancyra, George, and the other Semi-arians, say distinctly, " This
hypostasis our Fathers called essence," ova-ia. Epiph. I/i:sr. 74. 12. fin.; in accordance with
which is the unauthorized addition to the Sardican Epistle, " imoa-Taaiv, ^v avrol oi alperiKoi
oxKTiav Trpnaayopdovai." Theod. .ff. JE. ii. 6.
If it be said that Jerome from his Roman connection, and Basil and George as Semi-arians,
would be led by their respective theologies for distinct reasons thus to speak, it is true, and
may have led them to too broad a statement of the fact ; but then on the other hand it was in
accordance also with the theology of S. Basil, so strenuous a defender of the formula of the
Three Hypostases, to suppose that the Nicene Fathers meant to distinguish xmoaravts from
ovfTia in their anathema.
Again, Socrates informs us that, though there was some dispute about hypostasis at Alex-
andria shortly before the Nicene Council, yet the Council itself " devoted not a word to the
question," If. E. iii. 7. ; which hardly consists with its having intended to rule that «^ irtpas
tnroaTda-eus waS distinct from i^ irtpas ovaias.
And in like manner the Council of Alexandria, a.d. 362, in deciding that the sense of
Hypostasis was an open question, not only from the very nature of the case goes on the sup-
position that the Nicene Council had not closed it, but says so in words again and again in its
Synodal Letter. If the Nicene Council had already used " hypostasis " in its present sense,
what remained to Athanasius at Alexandria but to submit to it ?
Indeed the history of this Council is perhaps the strongest argument against the supposed
discrimination of the two terms by the Council of Nicsea. Bull can only meet it by considering
that an innovation upon the " veterem vocabuli usum " began at the date of the Council of
Sardica, though Socrates mentions the dispute as existing at Alexandria before the Nicene
Council, If. £. iii. 4. 5. while the supposititious confession of Sardica professes to have received
the doctrine of the one hypostasis by tradition as Catholic.
Nor is the use of the word in earlier times inconsistent with these testimonies ; though it
occurs so seldom, in spite of its being a word of S. Paul [i.e. Heb. i. 3], that testimony is our
principal evidence. Socrates' remarks deserve to be quoted ; " Those among the Greeks who
i
IN THE NICENE ANATHEMA. 8i
have treated of the Greek philosophy, have defined essence, oiaia, in many ways, but they had
made no mention at all of hypostasis. Irenseus the Grammarian, in his alphabetical Atticist,
even calls the term barbarous ; because it is not used by any of the ancients, and if anywhere
found, it does not mean what it is now taken for. Thus in the Phoenix of Sophocles it means
an 'ambush;' but in Menander, 'preserves,' as if one were to call the wine-lees in a cask
' hypostasis.' However it must be observed, that, in spite of the old philosophers being silent
about the term, the more modern continually use it for essence, ova-ias," H. E. iii. 7. The
word pnncipally occurs in Origen among Ante-Nicene writers, and he, it must be confessed
uses it, as far as the context decides its sense, to mean subsistence or person. In other words,
it was the word of a certain school in the Church, which afterwards was accepted by the
Church ; but this proves nothing about the sense in which it was used at Nicsea. The three
Hypostases are spoken of by Origen, his pupil Dionysius, as afterwards by Eusebius of Csesarea
(though he may notwithstanding have considered hypostasis synonymous with essence), and
Athanasius (Origen in Joan. ii. 6. Dionys. ap. Basil de Sp. S. n. 72. Euseb. ap. Socr. i. 23.
Athan. m Illud Omnia, &c. 6); and the Two Hypostases of the Father and the Son, by Origen^
Ammonius, and Alexander (Origen c. Cels. viii. 2. Ammon. ap. Caten. in Joan. x. 30. Alex. ap.
Theod. i. 3. p. 740). As to the passage in which two hypostases are spoken of in Dionysius'
letter to Paul of Samosata, that letter certainly is not genuine, as might be shewn on a fitting
occasion, though it is acknowledged by very great authorities.
I confess that to my mind there is an antecedent probability that the view which has here
been followed is correct. Judging by the general history of doctrine, one should not expect
that the formal ecclesiastical meaning of the word should have obtained everywhere so early.
Nothing is more certain than that the doctrines themselves of the Holy Trinity and the Incar-
nation were developed, or, to speak more definitely, that the propositions containing them were
acknowledged, from the earhest times ; but the particular terms which now belong to them are
most uniformly of a later date. Ideas were brought out, but technical phrases did not obtain.
Not that these phrases did not exist, but either not as technical, or in use in a particular School
or Church, or with a particular writer, or as a-na^ Xeyofifpa, as words discussed, nay resisted,
perhaps used by some local Council, and then at length accepted generally from their obvious
propriety. Thus the words of the Schools pas^ into the service of the Catholic Church.
Instead then of the word viroaraa-is being, as Maran says, received in the East " summa
consensu," from the date of Noetus or at least Sabellius, or of Bull's opinion " apud Catholicos
Dionysii setate ratuin et fixum illud fuisse, tres esse in divinis hypostases," I would consider
that the present use of the word was in the first instance Alexandrian, and that it was little
more than Alexandrian till the middle of the fourth century.
Lastly, it comes to be considered how the two words are to be accounted for in the Creed,
if they have not distinct senses. Coustant supposes that l^ oitrias was added to explain e'l
vTToarda-ews, lest the latter should be taken in a Sabellian sense. On which we may perhaps
remark besides, that the reason why vTroaraa-is was selected as the principal term was, that it
was agreeable to the Westerns as well as admitted by the Orientals. Thus, by way of contrast,
we find the Second General Council, at which there were no Latins, speaking of Three
Hypostases, and Pope Damasus and the Roman Council speaking a few years sooner of the
Holy Ghost as of the same hypostasis and usia with the Father and the Son. Theod.
JI. E. ii. 1 7. Many things go to make this probable. For instance, Coustant acutely points
out, though Maran and the President of Magdalen [Routh, Rel. Sac. iii. 383] dissent, that this
probably was a point of dispute between the two Dionysii ; the Bishop of Alexandria asserting,
as we know he did assert. Three Hypostases, the Bishop of Rome protesting in reply against
'^"Ihx&t partitive Hypostases," as involving tritheism, and his namesake rejoining, "If because
there are Three Hypostases, any say that they are partitive, three there are, though they like it
not." Again, the influence of the West shews itself in the language of Athanasius, who,
VOL. IV. .
82 EXCURSUS ON THE WORD HYPOSTASIS, Etc.
contrary to the custom of his Church, of Origen, Dionysius, and his own immediate patron and
master Alexander, so varies his own use of the word, as to make his writings almost an example
of that freedom which he vindicated in the Council of Alexandria. Again, when Hosius went
to Alexandria before the Nicene Council, and a dispute arose with reference to Sabellianism
about the words vnovravis and oiala, what is this too, but the collision of East and West ? It
should be remembered moreover that Hosius presided at Nic?ea, a Latin in an Eastern city ;
and again at Sardica, where, though the decree in favour of the One Hypostasis was not passed,
it seems clear from the history that he was resisting persons with whom in great measure he
agreed. Further, the same consideration accounts for the omission of the el oiaias from the
Confession of Mark and the two which follow, on which Bull rv'.ies in proof that the Semi-arians
rejected this formula. These three Semi-arian Creeds, and chese only, were addressed to the
Latins, and therefore their compilers naturally select that synonym which was most pleasing to
them, as the means of securing a hearing; just as Athanasius on the other hand in his de
Decretis, writing to the Greeks, omits vTrovrdirecos and writes ovcrias.
I
EXPOSITIO FIDE I.
The date of this highly interesting document is quite uncertain, but there is every ground
for placing it earlier than the explicitly anti-Arian treatises. Firstly, the absence of any express
reference to the controversy against Arians, while yet it is clearly in view in §§ 3 and 4, which
lay down the rule afterwards consistently adopted by Athanasius with regard to texts which
speak of the Saviour as created. Secondly, the untroubled use of o/xotoy (§ i, note 4) to express
the Son's relation to the Father. Thirdly, the close affinity of this Statement to the Sermo
Major de Fide which in its turn has very close points of contact with the pre-Arian treatises.
But see Prolegg. ch. iii. § i (37).
If we are to hazard a conjecture, we may see in this "eKdea-is" a statement of faith
published by Athanasius upon his accession to the Episcopate, a.d. 328. The statement
proper (Hahn § 119) consists of § i. §§ 2 — 4 are an explanatory comment insisting on
the distinct Existence of the Son, and on His essential uncreatedness.
The translation which follows has been carefully compared with one made by the late
Prof. Swainson in his work on the Creeds, pp. 73 — 76. Dr. Swainson there refers to a former
' imperfect and misleading ' translation (in Irons' Athanasius contra Mundiini) which the
present editor has not seen. Dr. Swainson expresses doubts as to the Athanasian authorship
of the Ecthesis, but without any cogent reason. The only point of importance is one which
acquaintance with the usual language of Athanasius shews to make distinctly in favour of, and
not against, the genuineness of this little tract. Three times in the course of it the Human
Body, or Humanity of the Lord is spoken of as 6 YMpiaK6<s avepwiros. Dr. Swainson exaggerates
the strangeness of the expression by the barbarous rendering ' Lordly man ' (How would he
translate KvpiuKov delrrvop?). But the phrase certainly requires explanation, although the
explanation is not difficult, (i) It is quoted by Facundus of Hermiane from the present work
{Def. Tr, Cap. xi. 5), and by Rufinus from an unnamed work of Athanasius (Mibellus'),
probably the present one. Moreover, Athanasius himself uses the phrase, frequently in the
Sermo Major de Fide, and in his exposition of Psalm xl. (xli.). Epiphanius uses it at least
twice {Ancor. 78 and 95); and from these Greek Fathers the phrase (' Dominions Homo')
passed on to Latin . writers such as Cassian and Augustine (below, note 5), who, however,
subsequently cancelled his adoption of the expression {Retr. I. xix. 8). The phrase, therefore,
is not to be objected to as un-Athanasian. In fact (2) it is founded upon the profuse and
characteristic use by Ath. of the word &v6pcinos to designate the manhood of our Lord (see Orat
c. Ar. i. 41, 45, ii. 45, note 2. Dr. Swainson appears unaware of this in his unsatisfactory
paragraph p. 77, lines 14 and foil.). If the human nature of Christ may be called SudpioTros
(i Tim. ii. 5) at all, there is no difficulty in its being called 6 avdp. rov o-wrjjpos {Serm. M. de F.
24 and 30), or KwpioKos avdpairos, a phrase equated witli t6 [KvptaKov] vapa in Serm. M. de F.
19 and 28—31 (see also a discussion in Thilo Athan. 0pp. Dogm. select, p. 2\ This use of
the word &v6pa>7Tos, if carelessly employed, might lend itself to a Nestorian sense. But
Athanasius does not employ it carelessly, nor in an ambiguous context ; although of course
he might have used different language had he foreseen the controversies of the fifth cen-
tury. At any rate, enough has been said to shew that its use in the present treatise does not
expose its genuineness to cavil.
G 2
STATEMENT OF FAITH.
I. We believe in one Unbegotten^ God,
Father Almighty, maker of all things both
visible and invisible, that hath His being from
Himself And in one Only-begotten Word,
Wisdom, Son, begotten of the Father without
beginning and eternally ; word not pronounced '
nor mental, nor an effluence ^ of the Perfect,
nor a dividing of the impassible Essence, nor
an issue 3 ; but absolutely perfect Son, living
and powerful (Heb. iv. 12), the true Image of
the Father, equal in honour and glory. For
this, he says, ' is the will of the Father, that as
they honour the Father, so they may honour
the Son also' (Joh. v. 23) : very God of very
God, as John says in his general Epistles,
' And we are in Him that is true, even in His
Son Jesus Christ : this is the true God and
everlasting life' (i Joh. v. 20): Almighty of
Almighty. For all things v/hich the Father
rules and sways, the Son rules and sways
likewise : wholly from the Whole, being like 4
the Father as the Lord says, 'he that hath
seen Me hath seen the Father ' (Joh. xiv. 9).
But He was begotten ineffably and incompre-
hensibly, for ' who shall declare his genera-
tion?' (Isa. liii. 8), in other words, no one
can. Who, when at the consummation of the
ages (Heb. ix. 26), He had descended from
the bosom of the Father, took from the un-
defiled Virgin Mary our humanity (avdpwnov),
Christ Jesus, whom He delivered of His own
will to suffer for us, as the Lord saith : ' No man
taketh My life from Me. I have power to lay
it down, and have power to take it again '
(Joh. X. 18). In which humanity He was
crucified and died for us, and rose from the
dead, and was taken up into the heavens,
having been created as the beginning of ways
9 See de Syn. §§ 3, 46, 47, and the Excursus in Lightfoot's
Ignatius, vol. ii. pp. 90 and foil, (first ed ).
1 Cf. note by Newman on de Synodis, § 26(5).
2 Cf. Newman's note (8) on de Deer. § 11.
^ Or 'development' (Gr. 7rpoj3oA.i;) a word with Gnostic and
babellian antecedents, cf. Newman's note 8 on de Synodis, § 16.
4 This word, whic'n became the watchword of the Acacian party,
the successors of the Eusebians, marks the relatively early date
of this treatise. At a later period Athanasius would not use it
without qualification (see Orat. ii. § 22, note 4), and later still,
rejected the Word entirely as misleading (de Synodis, § 53, note 9).
Yet see ad Afros. 7, and Orat. ii. 34.
for us (Prov. viii. 22), when on earth He sheweo
us light from out of darkness, salvation from
error, life from the dead, an entrance to
paradise, from which Adam was cast out, and
into which he again entered by means of the
thief, as the Lord said, 'This day shalt thou be
with Me in paradise' (Lukexxiii. 43), into which
Paul also once entered. [He shewed us] also
a way up to the heavens, whither the humanity
of the Lord s, in which He will judge the
quick and the dead, entered as precursor for
us. We believe, likewise, also in the Holy
Spirit that searcheth all things, even the deep
things of God (i Cor. ii. 10), and we anathe-
matise doctrines contrary to this.
2. For neither do we hold a Son-Father, as
do the Sabellians, calling Him of one but not
of the same^ essence, and thus destroying
the existence of the Son. Neither do we
ascribe the passible body which He bore
for the salvation of the whole world to
the Father. Neither can we imaQ;ine three
Subsistences separated from each other, as
results from their bodily nature in the case of
men, lest we hold a plurality of gods like the
heathen. But just as a river, produced from
a well, is not separate, and yet there are in
fact two visible objects and two names. For
neither is the Father the Son, nor tne Son the
Father. For the Father is Father of the Son,
and the Son, Son of the Father, For like as
the well is not a river, nor the river a well, but
both are one and the same water which is
conveyed in a channel from the well to the
river, so the Father's deity passes into the Son
without flow and without division. For the
Lord says, 'I came out from the Father and
am come' (Joh, xvi. 28), But He is ever
5 6 KuptaKos acffpwTTos (see above, introductory remarks). The
expression is quoted as used by Ath., apparently from this passage,
by Rufinus (Hieron. 0pp. ix. p. 131, ed. 1643), I'heodoret, Dial. 3,
and others. The expression ' Dominicus Homo' used by St.
Augustine is rendered ' Divine Man' in Nicene and P. N. Fathers,
Series i. vol. vi. p. 40 b.
^ f).ovoovcrLov Kai ovx ofiooucriov (see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) b
sub fin.). The distinction cannot (to those accustomed to use the
' Nicene ' Creed in English) be rendered so as to imply a real
diflFerence. The real distinction lies, not in the prefixes /u.01/0- and
6;u.o-, but in the sense to be attached to the ambiguous tena
ov(TCa.
STATEMENT OF FAITH.
85
with the Father, for He is in the bosom of the
Father, nor was ever the bosom of the Father
void of the deity of the Son. For He says,
' I was by Him as one setting in order ' (Prov.
viii. 30). But we do not regard God the Creator
of all, the Son of God, as a creature, or thing
made, or as made out of nothing, for He is
truly existent from Him who exists, alone
existing from Him who alone exists, in as
much as the like glory and power was eternally
and conjointly begotten of the Father. For
' He that hath seen ' the Son * hath seen the
Father (Joh. xiv. 9). All things to wit were
made through the Son ; but He Himself is not
a creature, as Paul says of the Lord : ' In Him
were all things created, and He is before all '
(Col. i. 16). Now He says not, 'was created'
before all things, but ' is' before all things. To
be created, namely, is applicable to all things,
but ' is before all ' applies to the Son only.
3. He is then by nature an Offspring, perfect
from the Perfect, begotten before all the hills
(Prov. viii. 25), that is before every rational
and intelligent essence, as Paul also in another
place calls Him ' first-born of all creation '
(Col. i. 15). But by calling Him First-born,
He shews that He is not a Creature, but Off-
spring of the Father. For it would be incon-
sistent with His deity for Him to be called a
creature. For all things were created by the
Father through the Son, but the Son alone
was eternally begotten from the Father, whence
God the Word is 'first-born of all creation,'
unchangeable from unchangeable. However,
the body which He wore for our sakes is
a creature : concerning which Jeremiah says,
according to the edition of the seventy trans-
lators 7 (Jer. xxxi. 22) : 'The Lord created for
us for a planting a new salvation, in which
salvation men shall go about : ' but according
to Aquila the same text runs: 'The Lord
created a new thing in woman.' Now the
salvation created for us for a planting, which
is new, not old, and for us, not before us, is
Jesus, Who in respect of the Saviour ^ was
made man, and whose name is translated in
one place Salvation, in another Saviour. But
7 Heb. For the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth,
A woman shall encompass a man.' Cf. Orat. ii. 46, note 5.
8 The same phrase also in Serm. M. de Fid. 18,
salvation proceeds from the Saviour, just as
illumination does from the light. The salva-
tion, then, which was from the Saviour, being
created new, did, as Jeremiah says, ' create
for us a new salvation,' and as Aquila renders :
' The Lord created a new thing in woman,' that
is in Mary. For nothing new was created in
woman, save the Lord's body, born of the
Virgin Mary without intercourse, as also it says
in the Proverbs in the person of Jesus : 'The
Lord created me, a beginning of His ways for
His works ' (Prov. viii. 22). Now He does not
say, ' created me before His works,' lest any
should take the text of the deity of the Word.
4. Each text then which refers to the creature
is written with reference to Jesus in a bodily
sense. For the Lord's Humanity 9 was created
as ' a beginning of ways,' and He manifested it
to us for our salvation. For by it we have our
access to the Father. For He is the way (Joh.
xiv. 6) which leads us back to the Father. And
a way is a corporeal visible thing, such as is
the Lord's humanity. Well, then, the Word of
God created all things, not being a creature,
but an offspring. For He created none of the
created things equal or like unto Himself.
But it is the part of a Father to beget, while it
is a workman's part to create. Accordingly,
that body is a thmg made and created, which
the Lord bore for us, which was begotten for
US', as Paul says, 'wisdom from God, and
sanctification and righteousness, and redemp-
tion ; ' while yet the Word was before us and
before all Creation, and is, the Wisdom of the
Father. But the Holy Spirit, being that which
proceeds from the Father, is ever in the hands ^
of the Father Who sends and of the Son Who
conveys Him, by Whose means He filled all
things. The Father, possessing His existence
from Himself, begat the Son, as we said, and
did not create Him, as a river from a well
and as a branch from a root, and as brightness
from a light, things which nature knows to be
indivisible ; through whom to the Father be
glory and power and greatness before all ages,
and unto all the ages of the ages. Amen.
9 KvpiaKos dvSpioTros, see above.
1 ryevviiflr) (i Cor. i. 30, eyevijei)). The two words are constantly
confused in MSS., and I suspect that^eyei^S)), which (j>ace Swainson
p. 78, note) the context really requires, was what Ath. wrote
2 See also de Sent. Dionys. 17.
I
IN ILLUD 'OMNIA,' ETC.
This memorandum or short article was written, as its first sentence shews, during the
lifetime of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and therefore not later than the summer of a.d. 342. The
somewhat abrupt beginning, and the absence of any exposition of the latter portion of the text,
have led to the inference that the work is a fragment : but its conclusion is evidently perfect,
and the opening words probably refer to the text itself. The tract is a reply to the Arian
argument founded upon Luke x. 22 (Matt. xi. 27). If 'all things' had been delivered to
the Son by the Father, it would follow that once He was without them. Now ' all things *
include His Divine Sonship. Therefore there was a time when the Son was not. Athanasius
meets this argument by totally denying the minor premise. By * all things,' he argues, Christ
referred to His mediatorial work and its glories, not to His essential nature as Word of God.
He then adduces Joh. xvi. 15, to shew at once the Son's distinctness from the Father, and that
the Father's attributes must also be those of the Son.
The interpretation of the main text given in this tract was not subsequently maintained by
Athanasius : in Oral. iii. 35, he explains it of the Son, as safeguarding His separate personality
against the Sabellians. It should, however, be noted that this change of ground does not
involve any concession to the Arian use of the passage : it merely transfers the denial of
Athanasius from their minor to their major premise.
Beyond the fact that the tract was written before 342 there is no conclusive evidence as
to its date. But it is generally placed (Montfaucon, Ceillier, Alzog) before the ' Encyclical,'
which was written in 339, and in several particulars it differs from the later anti-Arian
treatises : perhaps then we may conjectufally place it about 335, i.e. before the first exile
of the ' Pope.'
ON LUKE X. 22 (MATT. XI. 27).
§ T. This text refers not to the eternal
Word but to the Incarnate.
" All things were delivered to Me by My
Father. And none knoweth Who the Son is,
save the Father ; and Who the Father is, save
the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth
to reveal Him."
And from not perceiving this they of the
sect of Arius, Eusebius and his fellows, in-
dulge impiety against the Lord. For they
say, if all things were delivered (meaning by
' all ' the Lordship of Creation), there was once
a time when He had them not. But if He had
them not, He is not of the Father, for if He
were. He would on that account have had them
always, and would not have required to receive
them. But this point will furnish all the clearer
an exposure of their folly. For the expression
in question does not refer to the Lordship over
Creation, nor to presiding over the works of
God, but is meant to reveal in part the inten-
tion of the Incarnation {Tr]^ oIkovoixIos). For
if when He was speaking they ' were delivered '
to Him, clearly before He received them, crea-
tion was void of the Word. What then be-
comes of the text " in Him all things consist "
(Col. i. 17)? But if simultaneously with the
origin of the Creation it was ail ' delivered ' to
Him, such dehvery were superfluous, for ' all
things were made by Him ' (Joh. i. 3), and it
would be unnecessary for those things of which
the Lord Himself was the artificer to be de-
livered over to Him. For in making them He
was Lord of the things which were , being
originated. But even supposing they were
' delivered ' to Him after they were originated,
see the monstrosity. For if chey ' were de-
livered,' and upon His receiving them the
Father retired, then we are in peril of falling
into the fabulous tales which some tell, that
He gave over [His works] to the Son, and
Himself departed. Or if, while the Son has
them, the Father nas them also, we ought to
say, not * were delivered,' but that He took
Him as partner, as Paul did Silvanus. But
this is even more monstrous ; for God is
not imperfect ^ nor did He summon the Son
to help Him in His need ; but, being Father
of the Word, He makes all things by His
means, and without delivering creation over to
Him, by His means and in Him exercises Pro-
vidence over it, so that not even a sparrow falls
to the ground without the Father (Matt. x. 29),
nor is the grass clothed without God (ib. vi. 30),
but at once the Father worketh, and the Son
worketh hitherto (cf. Joh. v. 17). Vain, there-
fore, is the opinion of the impious. For the
expression is not what they think, but designates
the Incarnation.
§ 2, Sense in which^ and end for which all things
were delivered to the Incarnate Son.
For whereas man sinned, and is fallen, and
by his fall all things are in confusion : death
prevailed from Adam to Moses (cf. Rom. v. 14),
the earth was cursed, Hades was opened, Para-
dise shut. Heaven offended, man, lastly, cor-
rupted and brutalised (cf. Ps. xlix. 12), while the
devil was exulting against us ; — then God, in
His loving-kindness, not wilHng man made
in His own image to perish, said, ' Whom shall
I send, and who will go?' (Isa. vi. 8). But
while all held their peace, the Son ^ said, ' Here
am I, send Me.' And then it was that, saying
'Go Thou,' He 'delivered' to Him man, that
the Word Himself might be made Flesh, and
by taking the Flesh, restore it wholly. For to
Him, as to a physician, man 'was delivered'
to heal the bite of the serpent ; as to life, to
raise what was dead ; as to light, to illumine
the darkness ; and, because He was Word,
to renew the rational nature (ro XoytKor/).
Since then all things ' were delivered ' to Him,
and He is made Man, straightway all things
were set right and perfected. Earth receives
1 See Orat. ii. § 24, 25, De Deer. § 8, and Hamack, Doem-
p-«cA. (ed. 2) vol. 2. p. 208, note. , ,,. . ,^0 j
2 This dramatic representation of the Mission of the bon stanas
alone in the writings of Athanasius, and, if pressed, lends itself
to a conception of the relation of the Son to the Father which,
if not Arian, is at least contrary to the mote explicit and mature
conception of Athana.sius as formulated for example in Or.it. u. 31
(and see note 7 there). The same idea appears in IVIiIton s Tar.-idise
Lost (e.g. Book X.). See Newman, Ar/aKS*, p. 93, note.
88
IN ILLUD OMNIA, Etc.
blessing instead of a curse, Paradise was opened
to the robber, Hndes cowered, the tombs were
opened and the dead raised, the gates of
Heaven were lifted up to await Him that
' cometh from Edom' (Ps. xxiv. 7, Isa. Ixiii. 1).
Why, the Saviour Himself expressly signifies
in what sense ' all things were delivered' to Him,
when He continues, as Matthew tells us: 'Come
unto Me all ye that labour and are heavy
laden, and I will give you rest' (Matt. xi. 28).
Yes, ye ' were delivered ' to Me to give rest
to those who had laboured, and life to the dead.
And what is written in John's Gospel har-
monises with this : * The Father loveth the
Son, and hath given all things into His
hand' (Joh. iii. 35). Given, in order that, just
as all things were made by Him, so in Him all
things might be renewed. For they were not
'delivered' unto Him, that being poor, He
might be made rich, nor did He receive all
things that He might receive power which
before He lacked : far be the thought ; but
in order that as Saviour He might rather set
all things right. For it was fitting that while
' through Him ' all things came into being at
the beginning, ' in Him ' (note the change of
phrase) all things should be set right' (cf. Joh.
i. 3, Eph. i. 10). For at the beginning they
came into being ' through' Him ; but afterwards,
all having fallen, the Word has been made
Flesh, and put it on, in order that ' in Him' all
should be set right. Suffering Himself, He
gave us rest, hungering Himself, He nourished
us, and going down into Hades He brought us
back thence. For example, at the time of the
creation of all things, their creation consisted
in a fiat, such as ' let [the earth] bring forth,'
'let there be' (Gen. i. 3, n), but at the
restoration it was fitting that all things should
be ' delivered ' to Him, in order that He might
be made man, and all things be renewed in
Him. For man, being in Him, was quickened :
for this was why the Word was united to man,
namely, that against man the curse might no
longer prevail. This is the reason why they
record the request made on behalf of mankind
in the seventy-first Psalm : ' Give the King Thy
judgment, O God ' (Ps. Ixxii. i) : asking that
both the judgment of death which hung over us
may be delivered to the Son, and that He may
then, by dying for us, abolish it for us in
Himself. This was what He signified, saying
Himself, in the eighty-seventh Psalm : ' Thine
indignation lieth hard upon me ' (Ps. Ixxxviii. 7).
For He bore the indignation which lay upon
us, as also He says in the hundred and thirty-
seventh : ' Lord, Thou shalt do vengeance for
me ' (Ps. cxxxviii. 8, LXX.).
§ 3. By ' all things'* h meant the redemptive
attributes and power of Christ.
Thus, then, we may understand all things to
have been delivered to the Saviour, and, if it
be necessary to follow up understanding by
explanation, that hath been delivered unto
Him which He did not previously possess.
For He was not man previously, but became
man for the sake of saving man. And the
Word was not in the beginning flesh, but has
been made flesh subsequently (cf. Joh. i. i
sqq.), in which Flesh, as the Apostle says. He
reconciled the enmity which was against us
(Col. i. 20, ii. 14, Eph. ii. 15, 16) and de-
stroyed the law of the commandments in ordi-
nances, that He might make the two into one
new man, making peace, and reconcile both in
one body to the Father. That, however,
which the Father has, belongs also to the Son,
as also He says in John, 'AH things what-
soever the Father hath are Mine ' (Joh. xvi. 15),
expressions which could not be improved.
For when He became that which He was not,
' all things were delivered ' to Him. But when
He desires to declare His unity with the
Father, He teaches it without any reserve,
saying : ' All things whatsoever the Father
hath are Mine.' And one cannot but admire
the exactness of the language. For He has
not said ' all things whatsoever the Father
hath, He hath given to Me,' lest He should
appear at one time not to have possessed
these things ; but * are Mine.' For these things,
being in the Father's power, are equally in
that of the Son. But we must in turn examine
what things 'the Father hath.' For if Crea-
tion is meant, the Father had nothing before
creation, and proves to have received some-
thing additional from Creation ; but far be it
to think this. For just as He exists before
creation, so before creation also He has what
He has, which we also believe to belong to
the Son (Joh. xvi. 15). For if the Son is in
the Father, then all things that the Father
has belong to the Son. So this expression
is subversive of the perversity of the heterodox
in saying that 'if all things have been deli-
vered to the Son, then the Father has
ceased to have power over what is delivered,
having appointed the Son in His place.
For, in fact, the Father judgeth none, but
hath given all judgment to the Son' (Joh.
V. 22). But 'let the mouth of them that speak
wickedness be stopped' (Ps. Ixiii* 11), (for
although He has given all judgment to the
Son, He is not, therefore, stripped of lordship :
nor, because it is said that all things are
delivered by the Father to the Son, is He any
the less over all), separating as they clearly do
the Only-begotten from God, Who is by nature
ON LUKE X. 22 (MATT. XL 27).
89
inseparable from Him, even though in their
madness they separate Him by their words, not
perceiving, the impious men, that the Light
can never be separated from the sun, in which
it resides by nature. For one must use a poor
simile drawn from tangible and familiar objects
to put our idea into words, since it is over
bold to intrude upon the incomprehensible
nature [of God].
§4. The text John xvt. 15, shews clearly the
essential relation of the Son to the Father.
As then the light from the Sun which
illumines the world could never be supposed,
by men of sound mind, to do so without the
Sun, since the Sun's light is united to the Sun
by nature ; and as, if the Light ' were to say :
I have received from the Sun the power of
illumining all things, and of giving growth and
strength to them by the heat that is in me,
no one will be mad enough to think that the
mention of the Sun is meant to separate him
from what is his nature, namely the light ;
so piety would have us perceive that the
Divine Essence of the Word is united by
nature to His own Father. For the text
before us will put our problem in the clearest
possible light, seeing that the Saviour said,
' All things whatsoever the P'^ather hath are
Mine;' which shews that He is ever with the
Father. For 'whatsoever He hath' shews
that the Father wields the Lordship, while
'are Mine' shews the inseparable union.
It is necessary, then, that we should perceive
that in the Father reside Everlastingness, Eter-
nity, Immortality. Now these reside in Him
not as adventitious attributes, but, as it were,
in a well-spring they reside in Him, and in
the Son. When then you wish to perceive
what relates to the Son, learn what is in the
Father, for this is what you must believe to
be in the Son. If then the Father is a thing
created or made, these qualities belong also
to the Son. And if it is permissible to say
of the Father ' there was once a time when
He was not,' or ' made of nothing,' let these
words be apphed also to the Son. But if
it is impious to ascribe these attributes to the
Father, grant that it is impious also to ascribe
them to the Son. For what belongs to the
Father, belongs to the Son, For he that
honoureth the Son, honoureth the Father that
sent Him, and he that receiveth the Son,
receiveth the Father with Him, because he
that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father
(Matt. X. 40 ] John xiv. 9). As then the Father
is not a creature, so neither is the Son ; and
as it is not possible to say of Him ' there was
» Cf. Orat. iii. 36.
a time when He was not,' nor ' made of no-
thing,' so it is not proper to say the like of the
Son either. But rather, as the Father's attri-
butes are Everlastingness, Immortalit)'', Eternity,
and the being no creature, it follows that thus
also we must think of the Son. For as it is
written (JoL v. 26), ' As the Father hath life
in Himself, so gave He to the Son also to have
life in Himself.' But He uses the word 'gave'
in order to point to the Father who gives.
As, again, life is in the Father, so also is it
in the Son, so as to shew Him to be inseparable
and everlasting. For this is why He speaks
with exactness, ' whatsoever the Father hath,'
in order namely that by thus mentioning the
Father He may avoid being thought to be the
Father Himself. For He does not say ' I am
the Father,' but 'whatsoever the Father
hath.'
§ 5. The same text further explained.
For His Only-begotten Son might, ye Arians,
be called 'Father 'by His Father, yet not in
the sense in which you in your error might
perhaps understand it, but (while Son of the
Father that begat Him) ' Father of the coming
age' (Isa. ix. 6, LXX.). For it is necessary
not to leave any of your surmises open to you.
Well then. He says by the prophet, 'A Son
is born and given to us, whose government
is upon his shoulder, and his name shall be
called Angel of Great Counsel, mighty God,
Ruler, Father of the coming age ' (Isa. ix. 6).
The Only-begotten Son of God, then, is af
once Father of the coming age, and mighty
God, and Ruler. And it is shewn clearly that
all things whatsoever the Father hath are His,
and that as the Father gives life, the Son
likewise is able to quicken whom He will.
For ' the dead,' He says, ' shall hear the voice
of the Son, and shall hve' (cf John v. 25),
and the will and desire of Father and Son
is one, since their nature also is one and
indivisible. And the Arians torture themselves
to no purpose, from not understanding the
saying of our Saviour, 'All things whatsoever
the Father hath are Mine.' For from this
passage at once the delusion of Sabellius can
be upset, and it will expose the folly of our
modern Jews. For this is why the Only-
begotten, having hfe in Himself as the Father
has, also knows alone Who the Father is,
namely, because He is in the Father and the
Father in Him. For He is His Image, and
consequently, because He is His Image, all
that belongs to the Father is in Him. He
is an exact seal, shewing in Himself the Father;
living Word and true. Power, Wisdom, our
Sanctification and Redemption (i Cor. i. 30).
For 'in Him we both live and move and have
90
IN ILLUD OMNIA, Etc.
our being' (Acts xvii. 28), and 'no man know-
eth Who is the Father, save the Son, and Who
is the Son, save the Father' (Luke x. 22).
§ 6. The Trisagion wrongly explained by
Arians. Jts true significance.
And how do the impious men venture to
speak folly, as they ought not, being men
and unable to find out how to describe even
what is on the earth ? But why do I say ' what
is on the earth ? ' Let them tell us their own
natuie, if they can discover how to investigate
their own nature ? Rash they are indeed, and
self-willed, not trembling to form opinions of
things which angels desire to look into (i Pet.
i. 12), who are so far above them, both in
nature and in rank. For what is nearer [God]
than the Cherubim or the Seraphim ? And
yet they, not even seeing Him, nor standing
on their feet, nor even with bare, but as it
were with veiled faces, offer their praises,
with untiring lips doing nought else but
glorify the divine and ineffable nature with
the Trisagion. And nowhere has any one of
the divinely speaking prophets, men specially
selected for such vision, reported to us that
in the first utterance of the word Holy the
voice is raised aloud, while in the second
it is lower, but in the third, quite low, — and
that consequently the first utterance denotes
lordship, the second subordination, and the
third marks a yet lower degree. But away
with the folly of these haters of God and
senseless men. For the Triad, praised, reve-
renced, and adored, is one and indivisible and
without degrees {aaxrifiaTKjTOi). It is united
without confusion, just as the Monad also is
distinguished without separation. For the fact
of those venerable living creatures (Isa. vi. ;
Rev. iv. 8) offering their praises three times,
saying 'Holy, Holy, Holy,' proves that the
Three Subsistences^ are perfect, just as in
saying ' Lord,' they declare the One Essence.
They then that depreciate the Only-begotten
Son of God blaspheme God, defaming His
perfection and accusing Him of imperfection,
and render themselves liable to the severest
chastisement. For he that blasphemes any one
of the Subsistences shall have remission neither
in this world nor in that which is to come.
But God is able to open the eyes of their
heart to contemplate the Sun of Righteous-
ness, in order that coming to know Him whom
they formerly set at nought, they may with
unswerving piety of mind together with us
glorify Him, because to Him belongs the
kingdom, even to the Father Son and Holy
Spirit, now and for ever. Amen.
» Tpets vTrooToo-eis. This expression is a link between this
tract and the Expositio (S 2), and is one of the indications it bears
of an early date. At this time we see that Athanasius speaks
of Three ' Hypostases,' but qualifies his language by the caveat
{Expos. 2) that they are not jne/ieptcr/xeVai. In this he follows his
Origenist predecessor Dionysius, and the language of the present
passage is that of Basil or the Gregories. But it is not the languaze
of Athan. himself in his later years. See above, Prolegg. ch. iL
§ 3 ('} W <'"<^ Introd. to Tom. ad Ant. and to Ad A/r.
ENCYCLICAL EPISTLE
TO THE
BISHOPS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
Athanasius wrote the following Epistle in the year 339. In the winter at the
beginning of that year the Eusebians held a Council at Antioch. Here they appointed
Gregory to the see of Alexandria in the place of Athanasius (see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 6).
'Gregory was by birth a Cappadocian, and (if Nazianzen speaks of the same Gregory,
which some critics doubt) studied at Alexandria, where S. Athanasius had treated him with
great kindness and familiarit)^, though Gregory afterwards took part in propagating the
calumny against him of having murdered Arsenius. Gregory was on his appointment dis-
patched to Alexandria ' (Newman). The proceedings on his arrival, Lent, 339, are related
in the following Encyclical Epistle, which Athanasius forwarded immediately before his
departure for Rome to all the Bishops of the Catholic Church. ' It is less correct in style,
as Tillemont observes, than other of his works, as if composed in haste. In the Editions
previous to the Benedictine, it was called an " Epistle to the Orthodox everywhere ; " but
Montfaucon has been able to restore the true title. He has been also able from his MSB.
to make a far more important correction, which has cleared up some very perplexing
difficulties in the history. All the Editions previous to the Benedictine read "George"
throughout for "Gregory," and "Gregory" in the place where "Pistus" occurs. Baronius,
Tillemont, &c., had already made the alterations from the necessity of the case ' (Newman).
After comparing the violence done to the Church with the outrage upon the Levite's wife
in Judges, ch. xix., he appeals to the bishops of the universal Church to regard his cause as
their own (§ i). He then recounts the details of what has happened ; the announcement
by the Prefect Philagrius of the supersession of Ath. by Gregory, the popular indignation,
and its grounds (§ 2); the instigation of the heathen mob by Philagrius to commit outrages
upon the sacred persons and buildings (§ 3) ; the violent intrusion of Gregory (§ 4) ; the
proceedings against himself (§ 5). He warns them against Gregory as an Arian, and asks
their sympathy for himself (§ 6), and that they will refuse to receive any of Gregory's letters
(§7). The 'Encyclical' was written just before his departure from Alexandria, where he
must have been in retirement for three weeks (Index to Festal Letter, 339) previously, as he
appears (§ 5) to have remained in the town till after Easter-day. Dr. Bright (p. xv. note)
sees here a proof of the inaccuracy of the ' Index : ' but there are other grounds for regarding
it as correct (see Prolegg. ch. v. § 3, c, and Introd. to Letters) : its chronology is therefore
adopted by the present editor. The events which led up to the scenes described in the
letter are more fully dealt with in Prolegg. ch. ii. § 6 (i), sub fin. and (2). It may be added
that Sozomen, iii. 6 in describing this escape of Athan., inserts the scene in the Church which
really took place in Feb. 356, while Socrates ii. 11 confuses the two occasions even more
completely. Internal evidence shews that Soz. partially corrected Socr. by the aid of the
Hkt. Aceph. The confusion of Gregory with George (especially easy in Latin), to which
almost every historian from Socrates and Theodoret to Neander and Newman has fallen
an occasional victim, appears to have vitiated the transcription of this encyclical from very
early times. But Sievers (p. 104) goes too far in ascribing to that cause the insertion of
a great part of§§ 3—5.
CIRCULAR LETTER.
f
To his fellow-ministers in every place, be-
loved lords, Athanasius sends health in the
Lord.
§ I. The ivhole Church affected by what has
occurred.
Our sufferings have been dreadful beyond
endurance, and it is impossible to describe
them in suitable terms ; but in order that the
dreadful nature of the events which have taken
place may be more readily apprehended, I
have thought it good to remind you of a his-
tory out of the Scriptures. It happened that
a certain Levite' was injured in the person
of his wife ; and, when he considered the
exceeding greatness of the pollution (for the
woman was a Hebrew, and of the tribe of
Judah), being astounded at the outrage which
had been committed against him, he divided
his wife's body, as the Holy Scripture relates
in the Book of Judges, and sent a part of it
to every tribe in Israel, in order that it might
be understood that an injury like this pertained
not to himself only, but extended to all alike ;
and that, if the people sympathised with him
in his sufferings, they might avenge him ; or
if they neglected to do so, might bear the
disgrace of being considered thenceforth as
themselves guilty of the wrong. The mes-
sengers whom he sent related what had hap-
pened; and they that heard and saw it, de-
clared that such things had never been done
from the day that the children of Israel came
up out of Egypt. So every tribe of Israel
was moved, and all came together against the
offenders, as though they had themselves been
the sufferers ; and at last the perpetrators of
this iniquity were destroyed in war, and be-
came a curse in the mouths of all : for the
assembled people considered not their kindred
blood, but regarded only the crime they had
committed. You know the history, brethren,
and the particular account of the circumstances
given in Scripture. I will not therefore de-
scribe them more in detail, since I write to
' Judg. xix 29.
persons acquamted with them, and as I am
anxious to represent to your piety our present
circumstances, which are even worse than
those to which I have referred. For my ob-
ject in reminding you of this history is this,
that you may compare those ancient trans-
actions with what has happened to us now,
and perceiving how much these last exceed
the other in cruelty, may be filled with greater
indignation on account of them, than were
the people of old against those offenders. For
the treatment we have undergone surpasses
the bitterness of any persecution ; and the
calamity of the Levite was but small, when
compared with the enormities which have now
been committed against the Church ; or rather
such deeds as these were never before heard of
in the whole world, or the like experienced by
any one. For in that case it was but a single
woman that was injured, and one Levite who
suffered wrong; now the whole Church is
injured, the priesthood insulted, and worst of
all, piety ^ is persecuted by impiety. On that
occasion the tribes were astounded, each at
the sight of part of the body of one woman ;
but now the members of the whole Church
are seen divided from one another, and are
sent abroad some to you, and some to others,
bringing word of the insults and injustice
which they have suffered. Be ye therefore also
moved, I beseech you, considering that these
wrongs are done unto you no less than unto
us ; and let every one lend his aid, as feel-
ing that he is himself a sufferer, lest shortly
ecclesiastical Canons, and the faith of the
Church be corrupted. For both are in danger,
unless God shall speedily by your hands amend
what has been done amiss, and the Church
be avenged on her enemies. For our Canons 3
and our forms were not given to the Churches
at the present day, but were wisely and safely
transmitted to us from our forefathers. Neithei
had our faith its beginning at this time, but
2 ev(Te'(3eia, orthodoxy, see de Deer, i, note.
_ 3 Vid. Beveridg. Cod. Can. lUustr. i. 3. § 2. who comments 01
this passage at length. Allusion is also made to the Canons i»
Afol. contr. Arian. % 69
CIRCULAR LETTER.
93
it came down to us from the Lord through
His disciples *. That therefore the ordinances
which have been preserved in the Churches
from old time until now, may not be lost in
our days, and the trust which has been com-
mitted to us required at our hands ; rouse
yourselves, brethren, as being stewards of the
mysteries of God s, and seeing them now
seized upon by others. Further particulars
of our condition you will learn from the bearers
of our letters ; but I was anxious myself to
write you a brief account thereof, that you
may know for certain, that such things have
never before been committed against the
Church, from the day that our Saviour when
He was taken up, gave command to His dis-
ciples, saying, 'Go ye and make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost 6.'
§ 2 . Violent and uncanonual intrusion of Gregory.
Now the outrages which have been com-
mitted against us and against the Church are
these. While we were holding our assembhes
in peace, as usual, and while the people were
rejoicing in them, and advancing in godly
conversation, and while our fellow-ministers
in Egypt, and the Thebais, and Libya, were
in love and peace both with one another and
with us; on a sudden the Prefect of Egypt
puts forth a public letter, bearing the form
of an edict, and declaring that one Gregory
from Cappadocia was coming to be my suc-
cessor from the court. This announcement
confounded every one, for such a proceeding
was entirely novel, and now heard of for the
first time. The people however assembled
still more constantly in the churches?, for
they very well knew that neither they them-
selves, nor any Bishop or Presbyter, nor in
short any one had ever complained against
me ; and they saw that Arians only were on
his side, and were aware also that he was
himself an Arian, and was sent by Eusebius
and his fellows to the Arian party. For you
know, brethren, that Eusebius and his fellows
have always been the supporters and associates
of the impious heresy of the Arian madmen ^,
by whose means they have ever carried on
their designs against me, and were the authors
of my banishment into Gaul.
4 Vid. de Syn. § 4. Orat. i. § 8. Tertull. Prtsscr. Hcer. § 29.
5 T Cor. iv. I. * Matt, xxviii. 19.
7 Assembling in the Churches seems to have been a sort of pro-
test or demonstration, sometimes peaceably, but sometimes in a more
exceptionable manner ; — peaceably, during Justina's persecution
at Milan, Ambros. Ep. i. 20. August. Confess, ix. 15, but at Ephesus
after the third Ecumenical Council the Metropolitan shut up the
Churches, took possession of the Cathedral, and succeeded in re-
pelling the imperial troops. Churches were asylums, vid. Cod.
Theodos. ix. 45. § 4. &c. ; at the same time arms were prohibited.
8 apetoM-ai'iTWi', vid. note on de Syn. 13.
The people, therefore, were justly indignant
and exclaimed against the proceeding, calling
the rest of the magistrates and the whole city
to witness, that this novel and iniquitous
attempt was now made against the Church,
not on the ground of any charge brought
against me by ecclesiastical persons, but
through the wanton assault of the Arian here-
tics. For even if there had been any com-
plaint generally prevailing against me, it was
not an Arian, or one professing Arian doctrines,
that ought to have been chosen to supersede
me ; but according to the ecclesiastical Canons,
and the direction of Paul, when the people
were ' gathered together, and the spirit ' of
them that ordain, ' with the power of our Lord
Jesus Christ 9' all things ought to have been
enquired into and transacted canonically, in
the presence of those among the laity and
clergy who demanded the change ; and not
that a person brought from a distance by
Arians, as if making a traffic of the title of
Bishop, should with the patronage and strong
arm of heathen magistrates, thrust himself upon
those who neither asked for nor desired his
presence, nor indeed knew anything of what
had been done. Such proceedings tend to the
dissolution of all the ecclesiastical Canons, and
compel the heathen to blaspheme, and to sus-
pect that our appointments are not made ac-
cording to a divine rule, but as a result of
traffic and patronage ^
§ 3. Outrages which took place at the time oj
Gregory's arrival.
Thus was this notable appointment of Gre-
gory brought about by the Arians, and such
was the beginning of it. And what outrages
he committed on his entry into Alexandria,
and of what great evils that event has been
the cause, you may learn both from our letters,
and by enquiry of those who are sojourning
among you. While the people were offended
at such an unusual proceeding, and in con-
sequence assembled in the churches, in order
to prevent the impiety of the Arians from
mingling itself with the faith of the Church,
Philagrius, who has long been a persecutor
of the Church and her virgins, and is now
Prefect^, of Egypt, an apostate already, and
a fellow-countryman of Gregory, a man too
of no respectable character, and moreover
supported by Eusebius and his fellows, and
9 I Cor. V. 4. ■ I Orai. i. 8, note.
2 The Prefect of Egypt was called [after 367, see Sievers,
p Tig, and Prolegg. ch. v. Appendix, yet see Apol. Ar. % 83]
Augustalis as having been first appointed by Augustus, after hjs
victories over Antony. He was of the Equestrian, not, as other
Prefects, of the Senatorian order. He was the imperial officer,
as answering to Propraetors in the Imperial Provinces, vid. Hof-
man. in voc. [on Philagrius, see A^ol. c. Ari. § 72, Prolegg. ch. ii.
§ 5 (i) note].
94
EPISTOLA ENCYCLICA.
therefore full of zeal against the Church ; this
person, by means of promises which he after-
wards fulfilled, succeeded in gaining over the
heathen multitude, with the Jews and disorderly
persons, and having excited their passions, sent
them in a body with swords and clubs into
the churches to attack the people.
What followed upon this 3 it is by no means
easy to describe : indeed it is not possible
to set before you a just representation of the
circumstances, nor even could one recount
a small part of them without tears and lamen-
tations. Have such deeds as these ever been
made the subjects of tragedy among the an-
cients? or has the like ever happened before
in time of persecution or of war ? The church
and the holy Baptistery were set on fire, and
straightway groans, shrieks, and lamentations,
were heard through the city ; while the citizens
in their indignation at these enormities, cried
shame upon the governor, and protested against
the violence used to them. For holy and un-
defiled virgins'* were being stripped naked, and
suffering treatment which is not to be named,
and if they resisted, they were in danger of
their lives. Monks were being trampled under
foot and perishing; some were being hurled
headlong ; others were being destroyed with
swords and clubs ; others were being wounded
and beaten. And oh ! what deeds of impiety
and iniquity have been committed upon the
Holy Table ! They were offering birds and
pine cones 5 in sacrifice, singing the praises of
their idols, and blaspheming even in the very
churches our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,
the Son of the living God. They were burning
the books of Holy Scripture which they found
in the church ; and the Jews, the murderers
of our Lord, and the godless heathen enter-
ing irreverently (O strange boldness !) the holy
Baptistery, were stripping themselves naked,
and acting such a disgraceful part, both by
word and deed, as one is ashamed even to
relate. Certain impious men also, following
the examples set them in the bitterest per-
secutions, were seizing upon the virgins and
ascetics by the hands and dragging them- along,
and as they were haling them, endeavoured to
make them blaspheme and deny the Lord ;
and when they refused to do so, were beating
them violently and trampling them under foot.
§ 4. Outrages on Good Friday aftdEaster-day ,2,^9-
In addition to all this, after such a notable
3 Cf. Hist. Ar. §§ 9 and lo. Apparently the great Church of
' Theonas ' is meant, see Fest. Index xi.
4 The sister of S. Antony was one of the earliest known inmates
of a nunnery, 7)ii. Ant. § 2. 3. They were called by the Catholic
Church by the title, "Spouse of Christ." Apol. ad Const. § 33.
5 The flvos or suffitus of Grecian sacrifices generally consisted
of portions of odoriferous trees, vid. Potter. Aniiqu. ii. 4. Some
translate the word here used (o-rpo/SiAous), " shell-iish."
and illustrious entry into the city, the Arian
Gregory, taking pleasure in these calamities,
and as if desirous to secure to the heathens
and Jews, and those who had wrought these
evils upon us, a prize and price of their ini-
quitous success, gave up the church to be
plundered by them. Upon this licence of
iniquity and disorder, their deeds were worse
than in time of war, and more cruel than those
of robbers. Some of them were plundering what-
ever fell in their Avay ; others dividing among
themselves the sums which some had laid up
there ^; the wine, of which there was a large
quantity, they either drank or emptied out or
carried away ; they plundered the store of oil,
and every one took as his spoil the doors and
chancel rails; the candlesticks they forthwith
laid aside in the wall?, and lighted the candles
of the Church before their idols : in a word,
rapine and death pervaded the Church. And
the impious Arians, so far from feeling shame
that such things should be done, added yet
further outrages and cruelty. Presbyters and
laymen had their flesh torn, virgins were stript
of their veils ?% and led away to the tribunal
of the governor, and then cast into prison ;
others had their goods confiscated, and were
scourged ; the bread of the ministers and vir-
gins was intercepted. And these things were
done even during the holy season of Lent ^,
about the time of Easter; a time when the
brethren were keeping fast, while this not-
able Gregory exhibited the disposition of a
Caiaphas, and, together with Pilate the Go-
vernor, furiously raged against the pious wor-
shippers of Christ. Going into one of the
churches on the Preparation 9, in company
with the Governor and the heathen multitude,
when he saw that the people regarded with
abhorrence his forcible entry among them, he
caused that most cruel person, the Governor,
publicly to scourge in one hour, four and thirty
virgins and married women, and men of rank,
and to cast them into prison. Among them
there was one virgin, who, being fond of
study, had the Pealter in her hands, at the
time when he caused her to be publicly
scourged : the book was torn in pieces by the
officers, and the virgin herself shut up in prison.
6 Churches, as heathen temples before them, were used for
deposits. At the sack of Rome, Alaric spared the Churches and
their possessions ; nay, he himself transported the costly vessels
of St. Peter into his Church.
7 ec Tw roixiw. [Reference uncertain.]
7* a7roMa<^opif6/a.ej'ai ; see Sophocles' Lexicon under iia(j>6piov.
8 Lent and Passion Week was the season during which Justina's
persecution of St. Ambrose took place, and the proceedings against
St. Chrysostora at Constantinople. On the Paschal Vigils, vid.
TertuU. ad Uxor. ii. 4. [Anie-Nicene Fathers, vol. iv. p. 46] p. 426,
note n. Oxf. Tr.
9 7ropa<TK€ur), i.e., Good Friday. [Apr. 13, 339,] The word
was used for Friday generally as early as S. Clem. Alex. Strom.
vii. p. 877. ed. Pott. vid. Constit. Apostol. v. 13 Pseudo-Ign. ad
Philipp. 13.
CIRCULAR LETTER.
95
§ 5 . Retirement of Athanasms, and tyranny of
Gregory and Philagrius.
When all this was done, they did not stop
even here \ but consulted how the)' might act
the same part in the other church ", where
I was mostly living during those days ; and
they were eager to extend their fury to this
church also, in order that they might hunt out
and dispatch me. And this would have been my
fate, had not the grace of Christ assisted me,
if it were only that I might escape to relate
these few particulars concerning their conduct.
For seeing that they were exceedingly mad
against me, and being anxious that the church
should not be injured, nor the virgins that were
in it suffer, nor additional murders be com-
mitted, nor the people again outraged, I with-
drew myself from among them, remembering
the words of our Saviour, ' If they persecute
you in this city, flee ye into another ^' For
I knew, from the evil they had done against
the first-named church, that they would for-
bear no outrage against the other also. And
there in fact they reverenced not even the
Lord's day 3 of the holy Feast, but in that
church also they imprisoned the persons who
belonged to it, at a time when the Lord de-
livered all from the bonds of death, whereas
Gregory and his associates, as if fighting against
our Saviour, and depending upon the patronage
of the Governor, have turned into mourning
this day of liberty to the servants of Christ.
The heathens were rejoicing to do this, for they
abhor that day ; and Gregory perhaps did but
fulfil the commands of Eusebius and his fellows
in forcing the Christians to mourn under the
infliction of bonds.
With these acts of violence has the Governor
seized upon the churches, and has given them
up to Gregory and the Arian madmen. Thus,
those persons who were excommunicated by us
for their impiety, now glory in the plunder of
our churches ; while the people of God, and
the Clergy of the Catholic Church are com-
pelled either to have communion with the
impiety of the Arian heretics, or else to forbear
entering into them. Moreover, by means of
the Governor, Gregory has exercised no small
violence towards the captains of ships and
others who pass over sea, torturing and scourg-
ing some, putting others in bonds, and casting
them into prison, in order to oblige them not
to resist his iniquities, and to take letters *
from him. And not satisfied with all this, that
he may glut himself with our blood, he has
> [On the difficulties of this part of the history, see Prolegg.
ch. ii. §6 (i) ad tin., and ch. v. §3, c. It must be noted that
according to the following passage Ath. had left the 'other church'
before Easter Day. It was probably that of ' Quirinus,' Hist,
Ar. lo.] 3 Cf. Ap, Fug. ii, and Matt. x. 23.
3 Easter Day [Apr. 15]. 4 i.e. letters of communion.
caused his savage associate, the Governor, to
prefer an indictment against me, as in the
name of the people, before the most religious
Emperor Constantius, which contains odious
charges, from which one may expect not only
to be banished, but even ten thousand deaths.
The person who drew it up is an apostate
from Christianity, and a shameless worshipper
of idols, and they who subscribed it are
heathens, and keepers of idol temples, and
others of them Arians. In short, not to
make my letter tedious to you, a persecu-
tion rages here, and such a persecution as
was never before raised against the Church.
For in former instances a man at least might
pray while he fled from his persecutors, and
be baptized while he lay in concealment. But
now their extreme cruelty has imitated the
godless conduct of the Babylonians. For as
they falsely accused Daniel s, so does the
notable Gregory now accuse before the Go-
vernor those who pray in their houses, and
watches every opportunity to insult their min-
isters, so that through his violent conduct,
many are endangered from missing baptism,
and many who are in sickness and sorrow have
no one to visit them, a calamity which they
bitterly lament, accounting it worse than their
sickness. For while the ministers of the
Church are under persecution, the people who
condemn the impiety of the Arian heretics
choose rather thus to be sick and to run the
risk, than that a hand of the Arians should
come upon their heads.
§ 6. All the above illegalities 7vere carried or.
in the interest of Arianism.
Gregory then is an Arian, and has been
sent to the Arian party ; for none demanded
him, but they only ; and accordingly as a hire-
ling and a stranger, he makes use of the
Governor to inflict these dreadful and cruel
deeds upon the people of the Catholic Churches,
as not being his own. For since Pistus, whom
Eusebius and his fellows formerly appointed
over the Arians, was justly anathematized^
and excommunicated for his impiety by you
the Bishops of the Catholic Church, as you
all know, on our writing to you concerning
him, they have now, therefore, in like manner
sent this Gregory to them ; and lest they should
a second time be put to shame, by our again
writing against them, they have employed
extraneous force against me, in order that,
having obtained possession of the Churches,
they may seem to have escaped all suspicion
of being Arians. But in this too they have
been mistaken, for none of the people of the
Church are with them, except the heretics
S Dan. vi. 13.
6 Apol. c. Ar. §§ 19, 24.
96
EPISTOLA ENCYCLICA.
only, and those who have been excommuni-
cated on divers charges, and such as have
been compelled by the Governor to dis-
semble. This then is the drama of Eusebius
and his fellows, which they have long been
rehearsing and composing ; and now have
succeeded in performing through the false
charges which they have made against me
before the Emperor?. Notwithstanding, they
are not yet content to be quiet, but even
now seek to kill me; and they make them-
selves so formidable to our friends, that they
are all driven into banishment, and expect
death at their hands. But you must not
for this stand in awe of their iniquity, but
on the contrary avenge : and shew your in-
dignation at this their unprecedented conduct
against us. For if when one member suffers
ail the members suffer with it, and, according
to the blessed Apostle, we ought to weep with
them that weep^, let every one, now that so
great a Church as this is suffering, avenge its
wrongs, as though he were himself a sufferer.
For we have a common Saviour, who is blas-
phemed by them, and Canons belonging to
us all, which they are transgressing. If while
any of you had been sitting in your Church,
and while the people were assembled with you,
without any blame, some one had suddenly
come under plea of an edict as successor of one
of you, and had acted the same part towards
you, would you not have been indignant? would
you not have demanded to be righted ? If so,
then it is right that you should be indignant
now, lest if these things be passed over un-
noticed, the same mischief shall by degrees
extend itself to every Church, and so our
schools of religion be turned into a market-
house and an exchange.
§ 7. Appeal to the bishops of the whole Church
to unite against Gregory.
You are acquainted with the history of the
Arian madmen, beloved, for you have often,
both individually and in a body, condemned
their impiety ; and you know also that Eusebius
and his fellows, as 1 said before, are engaged in
the same heresy ; for the . sake of which they
have long been carrying on a conspiracy against
me. And I have represented to you, what
has now been done, both for them and by
them, with greater cruelty than is usual even
in time of war, in order that after the example
set before you in the history which I related
at the beginnmg, you may entertain a zealous
hatred of their wickedness, and reject those
who have committed such enormities against
the Church. If the brethren at Rome 9 [last
7 Apol. c. Ar. 3. 81 Cor. xii. 26 ; Rom. xii. 15.
9 Apol. Ar. 22, 30, Hist. Ar. 9. [The word nepvtriv, 'last year,
is absent from the best MS. used by Montfaucon.'j
year], before these things had happened, and on
account of their former misdeeds, wrote letters
to call a Council, that these evils might be set
right (fearing which, Eusebius and his fellows
took care previously to throw the Church into
confusion, and desired to destroy me, in order
that they might thenceforth be able to act
as they pleased without fear, and might have
no one to call them to account), how much
more ought you now to be indignant at these
outrages, and to condemn them, seeing they
have added this to their former misconduct.
I beseech you, overlook not such proceed-
ings, nor suffer the famous Church of the Alex-
andrians to be trodden down by heretics. In
consequence of these things the people and
their ministers are separated from one another,
as one might expect, silenced by the violence
of the Prefect, yet abhorring the impiety of the
Arian madmen. If therefore Gregory shall write
unto you, or any other in his behalf, receive
not his letters, brethren, but tear them in pieces
and put the bearers of them to shame, as the
ministers of impiety and wickedness. And
even if he presume to write to you after a
friendly fashion, nevertheless receive them not.
Those who bring his letters convey them only
from fear of the Governor, and on account of
his frequent acts of violence. And since it is
probable that Eusebius and his fellows will write
to you concerning him, I was anxious to ad-
monish you beforehand, so that you may herein
imitate God, Who is no respecter of persons,
and may drive out from before you those that
come from them ; because for the sake of the
Arian madmen they caused persecutions, rape
of virgins, murders, plunder of the Church's
property, burnings, ana blasphemies in the
Churches, to be committed by the heathens
and Jews at such a season. The impious and
mad Gregory cannot deny that he is an Arian,
being proved to be so by the person who writes
his letters. I'his is his secretary Ammon, who
was cast out of the Church long ago by my
predecessor the blessed Alexander for many
misdeeds and for impiety.
For all these reasons, therefore, vouchsafe
to send me a reply, and condemn these im-
pious men ; so that even now the ministers
and people of this place, seeing your orthodoxy
and hatred of wickedness, may rejoice in your
concord in the Christian faith, and that those
who have been guilty of these lawless deeds
against the Church may be reformed by your
letters, and brought at last, though late, to
repentance. Salute the brotherhood that is
among you. All the brethren that are with
me salute you. Fare ye well, and remember
me, and the Lord preserve you continually,
most truly beloved lords.
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS
"This Apology," says Montfaucon, "is the most authentic source of the history of the
Church in the first half of the fourth century. Athanasius is far superior to any other histo-
rians of the period, both from his bearing for the most part a personal testimony to the facts
he relates, and from his great accuracy and use of actual documents. On the other hand,
Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, must not be used without extreme caution, unless
they adduce documents, which is seldom the case." The 'Apology' is a personal defence by
Athanasius against the charges laid against him by the Eusebian party, and does not directly
concern matters of doctrine. After the Council of Nicaea, the Eusebian policy had been
to oust the principal opponents from their sees on personal grounds, so as to pave the way
for the abrogation of the Nicene formula. The attack upon Athanasius began in 331, but
without success. It was renewed at Cgesarea and Tyre in 334 — 335, and resulted in the exile
of Athanasius to Treveri, 336, His return in 337 was followed by a Synod at Antioch which
' deposed' him (close of 338), and by his expulsion in favour of Gregory (339). Then follow
the intervention of Julius (339 — 340), and the Council of Sardica (343), which resulted in
the eventual return of Athanasius in the autumn of 346. (The details are given more fully
in the Prolegomena, ch. ii. §§ 4 — 6), After this latter date, and before the relapse
of Valens and Ursacius which followed upon the death of Constans, Athanasius drew up
a collection of documents in proof of his innocence, connecting them together by an ex-
planatory narrative, (i) The charges against him related to events alleged to have occurred
before the year 332 (extortion of money, subvention of the rebel Philumenus, the chalice
of Ischyras, murder and mutilation of the bishop Arsenius) : the principal evidence as to their
falsehood was comprised in the proceedings of the Councils of Tyre and Jerusalem, and of the
commission of enquiry sent by the assembled bishops to the Mareotis. (2) The jttdidai in-
vestigations which proved the innocence of Athanasius took place first at Rome under Julius,
secondly at Sardica under Hosius; and were followed by the recognition of his innocence
on the part of the Emperor Constantius, of bishops in various parts of the world, and lastly of
some of his chief accusers.
The method of defence now adopted by Athanasius was firstly to show how complete
that recognition had been : this he does by a series of documents from the eve of his departure
to Rome down to the recantation of Ursacius and Valens soon after his return to Alexandria:
these documents cover eight years (339 — 347) previous to the composition of the Apology
(§§ I — S^)- Having shewn the completeness of his acquittal, he next gives the evidence upon
which it was based. Accordingly the second part (§§ 59 — 90) of the Apology deals with facts
and documents earlier than those comprised in the first. Hence the inversion of chronological
sequence {praefosterus ordo, Montf.) as between the two parts.
Referring the reader to the Prolegomena for a connected view of the history of which
this Apology is the primary source, it will suffice for our present purpose to enumerate the
documents quoted, with the briefest possible statement of their contents and bearing upon
the general purpose of the work. It should be noted that while in the first part the documents
follow one another in strict chronological order, those of the second part fall into groups
VOL. IV. H
98 APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
within which the matters are arranged as best suits the argument, and not in order of time.
In the following list the probable or approximate date of each document is given.
A. DOCUMENTS IN THE FIRST PART (general subject, the vindication of Athanasius before the
bishops of the Christian world).
(i.) Documents prior to the Council of Sardica (§§ i — 35).
1. §§ 3 — ig (end of 338 or beginning of 339). Circular of Egyptian bishops reciting the election of
Athanasius, the plots and charges against him,, the history of the Mareotic Commission, the
testimony available in his defence, and requesting all bishops to join in vindicating him.
J, II 20 — 35 (340 A.D. ). Letter of Julius to the Eusebian bishops (at the request of a Roman Council)
remonstrating with their discourteous reply to a former letter, reciting the history of the intrigues
against Athanasius, pressing them with their disrespect to the Synod of Nicsea, with their evasion
of the invitation to the Council at Rome, vindicating Athanasius (on the ground of documentary
proof of his innocence, and on that of the irregularity of the proceedings against him) and Marcellus
(upon his own statement of belief), lastly, insisting on the propriety of a reference of the questions
at issue to the whole Church, and upon the precedent giving the Roman Church a decisive voice in
questions affecting that of Alexandria.
(ii.) Council of Sardica (§§ 36—50).
3' §§ 36 — 40 (a.D. 343) Letter of the Council to the Church of Alexandria, reciting the intrigues against
Athanasius, and the confirmation by the council of his acquittal by Julius, encouraging the Alex-
andrine Church to patience, and announcing that they have requested the Emperors to give effect
to their decisions.
^ §1 41 — 43 (same date). Letter of the Council to the bishops of Egypt and Libya : identical with No. 3,
except that it omits the reference to certain presbyters of Alexandria, and mentions several Arian
leaders by name.
5, §§ 44 — 50 (same date). Circular letter of the Council, reciting the occasion of its assembling, the
behaviour of the Eastern bishops, the violence inflicted by them upon orthodox bishops, the break-
down of the charges brought by them against Athanasius, and the purgation of Marcellus and
Asclepas, who are pronounced innocent, while the Arian leaders are deposed and anathematised.
The signatures follow of over 280 bishops, most of whom signed afterwards while the letter was in
circulation.
(iii.) Documents forming A SEQUEL TO THE Council OF Sardica (§§ 51 — 58).
6 — 8. § 51. Letters of Constantius to Athanasius before and after death of Gregory.
6 (a.D. 345). Expressing sympathy with his sufferings, and inviting him to court ; he has written to
Constans to ask him to allow Athanasius to return.
7 (same year, later). Urging the same invitation.
8 (346, winter, or early spring). A similar summons, but more pressing. •
9. § 52 (same year). Letter of Julius to the Church of Alexandria, eulogising Athanasius, complimenting
them for their constancy, and congratulating them upon his return.
10. § 54 (same year). Circular letter of Constantius to the Church at large, announcing the restoration
of Athanasius and the cassation of all decrees against him, with indemnity to all in his communion.
ii- § 55 (same date). Letter of Constantius to the Church of Alexandria. Announcement of the restora-
tion of Athanasius, with exhortation to peace, and warning against disturbances.
12. § 56 (same date). To the Prefect of Egypt and other officials. Revocation of decrees against those
in communion with Athanasius, and restoration of their immunities.
1 3- § 57 (same year, autumn). Letter of the bishops of Palestine to the Egyptian Church congratulating
them on the restoration of Athanasius.
14. § 58 (a.D. 347). Letter of Valens and Ursacius to Julius unreservedly withdrawing their allegations
against Athanasius, anathematizing Arius and his heresy, and at the same time promising to take
the consequences of their offence if required by Julius to do so.
15. ib. (same year). Letter of the same to Athanasius, with a greeting and assurance that they are in
communion with him and with the Church.
B. DOCUMENTS IN THE SECOND PART.
(i.) Letters of Constantine previous to the Council of Tyre (§§ 59 — 63).
*6. § 59 (a.D. 331). A fragment, urging Athanasius with threats to admit to communion all (Arians) who
wish it.
17. § 61 (same year). Letter to the people of Alexandria, remonstrating with them for their dissensions
and stigmatising the calumnies against Athanasius (about the affair of Philumenus).
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS. 99
(ii.) 18. § 64 (332). Confession of Isckyras, that he had been compelled by the violence of certain Meletians
to fabricate false charges against Athanasius.
<Hi.) The affair of Arsenius (§§ 65—70).
19- § 67 (probably 332). Intercepted letter of the presbyter Pinnes to John Arcaph, warning htm of the
discovery of the plot, and begging him to drop the matter.
20. § 68 (same year). Letter of Coitstantine to Athanasius, expressing indignation at the charges con-
cerning Arsenius and Ischyras, and bidding him publish this letter in vindication of himself.
21. § 66 (same year). Letter of Alexander, Bishop of Thessalonica, praising Serapion, the son of an old
friend, and congratulating Athanasius on the exposure of the plot about Arsenius.
22. § 69 (same year). Letter of Arsenius to Athanasius, offering submission and requesting communion
with the Church.
23. § 70 (same year). Letter of Constantine to John Arcaph accepting his reconciliation to Athanasius,
and summoning him to court.
<iv.) Proceedings at Tyre in 335 (§§ 71 — 83).
24- § 77- Address to the Council by the Egyptian Bishops, complaining of the presence of partizan judges,
of the rejection of their evidence, and of the proposed constitution of the Mareotic Commission.
25. § 71. (Written A.D. 327, but put in as evidence at Tyre by Athanasius in the matter of Ischyras,
after the exposure of the plot concerning Arsenius). List of Meletian Bishops and Clergy presented
to Alexander of Alexandria shortly before his death, and not containing the name of Ischyras.
26. § 78. Protest addressed by the Egptian Bishops to Count Dionysius, repeating the above complaints
(in No. 24), and requesting him to stop the irregularities.
27' § 80. Alexander of Thessalonica to Dionysius, warning him of the conspiracy against Athanasius,
and of the character of the Mission to the Mareotis.
28. § 81. Letter of Dionysius to the Council, strongly remonstrating against their proceedings.
29. § 79- Letter of the Egyptian Bishops to Dionysius appealing to the Emperor.
30 — 32. Protests made by Egyptian Clergy against the proceedings of the Mareotic Commission.
30- § 73- Clergy of Alexandria to the Commissioners, protesting against the exclusion of all independent
persons from the proceedings.
3'* §§ 74> 75- Clergy of the Mareotis to the Council, giving an account of the facts concerning Ischyras,
and of the ex-parte character of the proceedings of the Commission.
32. § 76. The same to the Prefect and other officials of Egypt (dated Sep. 8, 335), denying upon oatb the
tale of Ischyras, and requesting them to forward their statement to the Emperor.
(v.J Documents subsequent to the Council of Tyre (§§ 84 — 88).
33' § 86 (335). Constantine to the Bishops assembled at Tyre, summoning them to giye an account of their
proceedings.
34. § 84. The Council of ferusalem to the Church of Alexandria, announcing that Arius has been
received to communion.
35- § 87 (June 17, 337). Constantine II. to the Church oj Alexandria (upon the death of Constantine,
whose purpose he claims to be carrying out), announcing the restoration of Athanasius.
36. § 85 (perliaps in 337, but possibly as early as 335). Order by Flavius Hemerius for the erection
of a church for Ischyras.
The two concluding sections (89, 90) of the Apology are a postscript added during the
troubles under Constantius (about 358, see Introd. to Ifist. Ar.). He points to the sufferings
which many bishops, including Hosius and Liberius, had endured rather than surrender his
cause, as fresh evidence of their belief in his innocence. He refuses to see any detraction
from the force of this argument in the fall of the two bishops mentioned.
The importance to the historian of this collection of documents need not be dwelt upon.
If the charges in dispute seem trivial and even grotesque, they none the less illustrate the
temper of the parties concerned, and the character of the controversy during the very im-
portant twenty years which end with the death of Constans and the reign of Constantius over
the undivided Empire.
H 2
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
INTRODUCTION.
1. I supposed that, after so many proofs of
my innocence had been given, my enemies
would have shrunk from further enquiry, and
would now have condemned themselves for
their false accusations of others. But as they
are not yet abashed, though they have been
so clearly convicted, but, as insensible to
shame, persist in their slanderous reports
against me, professing to think that the whole
matter ought to be tried over again (not that
they may have judgment passed on them, for
that they avoid, but in order to harass me,
and to disturb the minds of the simple) ; I
therefore tliought it necessary to make my
defence unto you, that you may listen to
their murmurings no longer, but may denounce
their wickedness and base calumnies. And
it is only to you, who are men of sincere
minds, that I offer a defence: as for the
contentious, I appeal confidently to the de-
cisive proofs which I have against them. For
my cause needs no further judgment; for judg-
ment has already been given, and not once or
twice only, but many times. First of all, it was
tried in my own country in an assembly of
nearly one hundred of its Bishops ^° ; a second
time at Rome, when, in consequence of letters
from Eusebius, both they and we were sum-
moned, and more than fifty Bishops met " ;
and a third time in the great Council assem-
bled at Sardica by order of the most religious
Emperors Constantius and Constans, when my
enemies were degraded as false accusers, and
the sentence that was passed in my favour
received the suffrages of more than three
hundred Bishops, out of the provinces of
Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, Palestine,
Arabia, Isauria, Cyprus, Pamphylia, Lycia,
Galatia, Dacia, Moesia, Thrace, Dardania,
Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly, Achaia, Crete,
«> The Council of Sardica says eighty ; which is a usual number
in Egyptian CouhcilE,. (vid. Tilleinolit, vol. 8. p. 74.) There were
about ninety Bishop? ;n Egj-pt, the Thebais, and Libya. The
present Counoil .vas held [at tne end of 338 or possibly at the
beginning of 339J. Its synodal Epistle is contained below, § 3, and
is particularly addressed to Pop-i Julius, § 20.
^i Thic was held'in 310; Julius's Letter is found below, § 21.
Dalmatia, Siscia, Pannonia, Noricum, Italy,
Picenum, Tuscany, Campania, Calabria, Apu-
lia, Bruttia, Sicily, the whole of Africa, Sar-
dinia, Spain, Gaul, and Britain.
Added to these was the testimony^ of
Ursa;ius and Valens, who had formerly calum-
niateu me, but afterwards changed their minds,
and not only gave their assent to the sentence
that was passed in my favour, but also con-
fessed that they themselves and the rest of
my enemies were false accusers ; for men who
make such a change and such a recantation
of course reflect upon Eusebius and his
fellows, for with them they had contrived the
plot against me. Now after a matter has been
examined and decided on such clear evidence
by so many eminent Bishops, every one will
confess that further discussion is unnecessary ;
else, if an investigation be instituted at this
time, it may be again discussed and again
investigated, and there will be no end to such
trifling.
2. Now the decision of so many Bishops
was sufficient to confound those who would
still fain pretend some charge against me.
But when my enemies also bear testimony in
my favour and against themselves, declaring
that the proceedings against me were a con-
spiracy, who is there that would not be
ashamed to doubt any longer? The law
requires that in the mouth, of two or three
witnesses ^ judgments shall be settled, and we
have here this great multitude of witnesses
in my favour, with the addition of the proofs
afforded by my enemies ; so much so that
those who still continue opposed to me no
longer attach any importance to their own
arbitrary 3 judgment, but now have recourse
to violence, and in the place of fair reasoning
seek to injure 4 those by whom they were
« Vid. infr. § 58. This was A.D. 347.
' Deut. xvii. 6.
3 ws r)ed\r)crav. vid. infr. § 14. de Deer. § 3. de Syn. § 13. Ep.
^S- § 5-
4 This implies that Valens_ and Ursacius were subjected to some
kind of persecution, which is natural [most improbable]. They
relapsed in 351, when Constantius on the death of Constans came
into possession of his brother's dominions ; and professed to hav«
been forced to their former recantation by the latter Emperor.
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
lOI
exposed. For this is the chief cause of vexa-
tion to them, that the measures they carried
on in secret, contrived by themselves in a
corner, have been brought to hght and dis-
closed by Valens and Ursacius ; for they are
well aware that their recantation while it
clears those whom they have injured, con-
demns themselves.
Indeed this led to their degradation in the
Council of Sardica, as mentioned before ; and
with good reason ; for, as the Pharisees of
old, when they undertook the defence of
Pauls, fully exposed the conspiracy which
they and the Jews had formed against him ;
and as the blessed David was proved to
be persecuted unjustly when the persecutor
confessed, ' I have sinned, my son David ^ ; '
so it was with these men ; being over-
come by the truth they made a request,
and delivered it in writing to Julius, Bi-
shop of Rome. They wrote also to me re-
questing to be on terms of peace with me,
though they have spread such reports con-
cerning me ; and probably even now they are
covered with shame, on seeing that those
whom they sought to destroy by the grace
of the Lord are still alive. Consistently also
with this conduct they anathematized Arius
and his heresy ; for knowing that Eusebius
and his fellows had conspired against me in
behalf of their own misbelief, and of nothing
else, as soon as they had determined to confess
their calumnies against me, they immediately
renounced also that antichristian heresy for the
sake of which they had falsely asserted them.
The following are the letters written in my
favour by the Bishops in the several Councils ;
and first the letter of the Egyptian Bishops.
Encyclical Letter of the Council of Egypt.
The holy Council assembled at Alexandria,
out of Egypt, the Thebais, Libya, and Penta-
polis, to the Bishops of the Catholic Church
everywhere, brethren beloved and greatly
longed for in the Lord, greeting.
3. Dearly beloved brethren, we might have
put forth a defence of our brother Athanasius,
as respects the conspiracy of Eusebius and
his fellows against him, and complained of his
sufferings at their hands, and have exposed all
their false charges, either at the beginning of
their conspiracy or upon his arrival at Alex-
andria. But circumstances did not permit it
then, as you also know; and lately, after the
return of the Bishop Athanasius, we thought
fl that they would be confounded and covered
■ with shame at their manifest injustice: in
S Acts xxiii. 9.
• I Sam. xxvi. 21.
consequence we prevailed with ourselves to
remain silent. Since, however, after all his
severe sufiTerings^ after his retirement into
Gaul, after his sojourn in a foreign and far
distant country in the place of his own, after
his narrow escape from death through their
calumnies, but thanks to the clemency of the
Emperor, — distress which would have satisfied
even the most cruel enemy, — they are still
insensible to shame, are again acting insolently
against the Church and Athanasius ; and from
indignation at his deliverance venture on still
more atrocious schemes against him, and are
ready with an accusation, fearless of the words
in holy Scripture', 'A false witness shall not be
unpunished ; ' and, ' The mouth that belieth
slayeth the soul;' we therefore are unable
longer to hold our peace, being amazed at
their wickedness and at the insatiable love
of contention displayed in their intrigues.
For see, they cease not to disturb the ear
of royalty with fresh reports against us ; they
cease not to write letters of deadly import, for
the destruction of the Bishop who is the enemy
of their impiety. For again have they written
to the Emperors against him ; again they wish
to conspire against him, charging him with a
butchery which has never taken place; again they
wish to shed his blood, accusing him of a murder
that never was committed (for at that former
time would they have murdered him by their
calumnies, had we not had a kind Emperor) ;
again they are urgent, to say the least, that
he should be sent into banishment, while
they pretend to lament the miseries of those
alleged to have been exiled by him. They
lament before us things that have never been
done, and, not satisfied with what has been
done to him, desire to add thereto other and
more cruel treatment.
So mild are they and merciful, and of so
just a disposition; or rather (for the truth
shall be spoken) so wicked are they and
malicious ; obtaining respect through fear and
by threats, rather than by their piety and
justice, as becomes Bishops. They have dared
in their letters to the Emperors to pour forth
language such as no contentious person would
employ even among those that are without ;
they have charged him with a number of
murders and butcheries, and that not before
a Governor, or any other superior officer, but
before the three Augusti ; nor shrink they
from any journey however long, provided only
all greater courts may be filled with their ac-
cusations. For indeed, dearly beloved, their
business consists in accusations, and that of
the most solemn character, forasmuch as the
7 Prov. xix. 5 ; Wisd. i. 11.
I02
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
tribunals to which they make their appeal are
the most solemn of any upon earth. And
what other end do they propose by these
investigations, except to move the Emperor
to capital punishment?
4. Their ovm conduct therefore, and not
that of Athanasius, is the fittest subject for
lamentation and mourning, and one would
more properly lament them, for such actions
ought to be bewailed, since it is written,
* Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan
him : but weep sore for him that goeth away,
for he shall return no move ^' For their whole
letter contemplates nothing but death ; and
their endeavour is to kill, whenever they may
be permitted, or if not, to drive into exile.
And this they were permitted to do by the
most rehgious father of the Emperors, who
gratified their lury by the banishment of
Athanasius 9, instead of his death. Now that
this is not the conduct even of ordinary
Christians, scarcely even of heathens, much less
of Bishops, who profess to teach others right-
eousness, we suppose that your Christian
consciences must at once perceive. How can
they forbid others to accuse their brethren,
who themselves become their accusers, and
that to the Emperors? How can they teach
compassion for the misfortunes of others,
who cannot rest satisfied even with our
banishment? For there was confessedly a
general sentence of banishment against us
Bishops, and we all looked upon ourselves
as banished men : and now again we consider
ourselves as restored with Athanasius to our
native places, and instead of our former
lamentations and mourning over him, as hav-
ing the greatest encouragement and grace, —
which may the Lord continue to us, nor suffer
Eusebius and his fellows to destroy ?
Even if their charges against him were true,
here is a certain charge against them, that
against the precept of Christianity, and after
his banishment and trials, they have assaulted
him again, and accuse him of murder, and
butchery, and other crimes, which they sound
in the royal ears against the Bishops. But
how manifold is their wickedness, and what
manner of men think you them, when every
word they speak is false, every charge they
bring a calumny, and there is no truth
whatever either in their mouths or their
writings ! Let us then at length enter upon
these matters, and meet their last charges.
This will prove, that in their former repre-
sentations m the Council ' and at the trial
8 Jer. xxii. lo. 9 Hist. Ar. $<y
' Of Tyre. See below, ? 71.
their conduct was dishonourable, or rather
their words untrue, besides exposing them for
what they have now advanced.
5. We are indeed ashamed to make any
defence against such charges. But since our
reckless accusers lay hold of any charge, and
allege that murders and butcheries were com-
mitted after the return of Athanasius, we
beseech you to bear with our answer though
it be somewhat long ; for circumstances con-
strain us. No murder has been committed either
by Athanasius or on his account, since our
accusers, as we said before, compel us to
enter upon this humiliating defence. Slaughter
and imprisonment are foreign to our Church.
No one did Athanasius commit into the hands
of the executioner ; and the prison, so far as
he was concerned, was never disturbed. Our
sanctuaries are now, as they have always been,
pure, and honoured only with the Blood of
Christ and His pious worship. Neither Pres-
byter nor Deacon was destroyed by Athana-
sius ; he perpetrated no murder, he caused the
banishment of no one. Would that they had
never caused the like to him, nor given him
actual experience of it ! No one here has been
banished on his account ; no one at all except
Athanasius himself, the Bishop of Alexandria,
whom they banished, and whom, now that
he is restored, they again seek to entangle in
the same or even a more cruel plot than
before, setting their tongues to speak all
manner of false and deadly words against
him.
For, behold, they now attribute to him the
acts of the magistrates; and although they
plainly confess in their letter that the Prefect
of Egypt passed sentence upon certain persons,
they now are not ashamed to impute this
sentence to Athanasius ; and that, though he
had not at the time entered Alexandria, but
was yet on his return from his place of exile.
Indeed he was then in Syria ; since we must
needs adduce in defence his length of way
from home, that a man may not be responsible
for the actions of a Governor or Prefect of
Egypt. But supposing Athanasius had been
in Alexandria, what were the proceedings of
the Prefect to Athanasius ? However, he was
not even in the country ; and what the Prefect
of Egypt did was not done on ecclesiastical
grounds, but for reasons which you will learn
from the records, which, after we understood
what they had written, we made diligent
enquiry for, and have transmitted to you.
Since then they now raise a cry against certain
things which were never done either by him
or for him, as though they had certainly taken
place, and testify against such evils as though
thc-y were assured of their existence; let them
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
103
inform us from what Council they obtained
their knowledge of them, from what proofs,
and from what judicial investigation? But if
they have no such evidence to bring forward,
and nothing but their own mere assertion, we
leave it to you to consider as regards their
former charges also, how the things took place,
and why they so speak of them. In truth, it
is nothing but calumny, and a plot of our
enemies, and a temper of ungovernable mood,
and an impiety in behalf of the Arian madmen,
which is frantic against true godliness, and
desires to root out the orthodox, so that
henceforth the advocates of impiety may
preach without fear whatever doctrines they
please. The history of the matter is as
follows : —
6. When Arius, from whom the heresy of
the Arian madmen has its name, was cast out
of the Church for his impiety by Bishop Alex-
ander, of blessed memory, Eusebius and his
fellows, who are the disciples and partners of
his impiety, considering themselves also to
have been ejected, wrote frequently to Bishop
Alexander, beseeching him not to leave the
heretic Arius out of the Church ^ But when
Alexander in his piety towards Christ refused
to admit that impious man, they directed their
resentment against Athanasius, who was then
a Deacon, because in their busy enquiries they
had heard that he was much in the famiharity
of Bishop Alexander, and much honoured by
him. And their hatred of him was greatly
increased after they had experience of his
piety towards Christ, in the Council assembled
at Nic£ea3, wherein he spoke boldly against
the impiety of the Arian madmen. But when
God raised him to the Episcopate, their long-
cherished malice burst forth into a flame, and
fearing his orthodoxy and resistance of their
impiety, they (and especially Eusebius \ who
was smitten with a consciousness of his own
evil doings), engaged in all manner of trea-
cherous designs against him. They prejudiced
the Emperor against him ; they frequently
threatened him with Councils ; and at last
assembled at Tyre ; and to this day they
cease not to write against him, and are so
implacable that they even find fault with his
appointment to the Episcopates, taking every
» Cf. de Syn. xy. 3 Cf. Socr. i. 8. 4 Cf. Nicomedia.
S The Eusebians alleged that, fifty-four Bishops of the two
parties of S. Alexander and Meletius being assembled for the elec-
tion, and having sworn to elect by the common voice, six or seven
of these broke their oaths in favour of S. Athanasius, whom no one
had thought of, and consecrated him in secret to the great surprise
and scandal of both ecclesiastical and lay persons, vid. Socr. ii. 17.
Philostorgius (a.d. 425) adds particulars, explanatory or corrective
of this statement, of which the Bishops in the text do not seem
to have heard ; viz., that Athanasius with his party one night
seized on the Church of St. Dionysius, and compelled two Bishops
whom he found there to consecrate him against their will ; that
he was in consequence anathematized by all the other Bishops,
means of shewing their enmity and hatred
towards him, and spreading false reports for
the sole purpose of thereby vilifying his
character.
However, the very misrepresentations which
they now are making do but convict their
former statements of being falsehoods, and
a mere conspiracy against him. For they
say, that ' after the death of Bishop Alexander,
a certain few having mentioned the name of
Athanasius, six or seven Bishops elected him
clandestinely in a secret place : ' and this is
what they wrote to the Emperors, having no
scruple about asserting the greatest falsehoods. _
Now that the whole multitude and all the
people of the Catholic Church assembled
together as with one mind and body, and
cried, shouted, that Athanasius should be
Bishop of their Church, made this the subject
of their public prayers to Christ, and conjured
us to grant it for many days and nights,
neither departing themselves from the Church,
nor suffering us to do so ; of all this we are
witnesses, and so is the whole city, and the
province too. Not a word did they speak
against him, as these persons represented, but
gave him the most excellent titles they could
devise, calling him good, pious. Christian, an
ascetic s, a genuine Bishop. And that he was
elected by a majority of our body in the sight
and with the acclamations of all the people,
we who elected him also testify, who are
surely more credible witnesses than those who
were not present, and now spread these false
accounts.
But yet Eusebius finds fault with the ap-
pointment of Athanasius, — he who perhaps
never received any appointment to his office
at all ; or if he did, has himself rendered it
invalid ^. For he had first the See of Berytus,
but leaving that he canie to Nicomedia. He
left the one contrary to the law, and contrary
to the law invaded the other ; having de-
serted his own without affection, and holding
possession of another's without reason ; he
but that, fortifying himself in his position, he sent in his election '
to the Emperor, and by this means obtained its confirmation. I/. E.
ii. 16. It appears, in matter of fact, that S. Athan. was absent
at the time of his election ; as Socrates says, in order to avoid it,
or as Epiphanius, on business at the Court ; these reasons are
compatible. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. § 4, and Gwatkin's note, quoted
there.]
5 It is contested whether S. Athan. was ever one of S. Antony's
monks, the reading of a passage in the commencement of his Vit.
Ant., which would decide the question, varying in different MSS.
The word " ascetic" is used of those who lived a life, as afterwards
followed in Monasteries, in the Ante-Nicene times. [See D.C.B. i.
181", and Prolegg. ch. ii. § i ad Jin, and.Introd. to Vit. Ant.]
6 The Canons of Nicaea and Sardica were absolute against
translation, but, as Bingham observes, Antiqu. vi. 4. § 6. only as
a general rule. The so-called Apostolical Canons except "'a
reasonable cause " and the sanction of a Council ; one of the Coun-
cils of Carthage prohibits them when subserving ambitions vievvs,
and except for the advantage of the Church. Vid. list of trans-
lations in Socr. ffist. vii. 36. Cassiodor. Hist. xii. 8. Ni.eph.
Hist. xiv. 39. Coteler. adds others ad Can, A/asi. 14. [cf Hist
Ari. 7.]
104
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
lost his love for the first in his lust for an-
other, without even keeping to that which he
obtained at the prompting of his lust. For,
behold, withdrawing himself from the second,
again he takes possession of another's ^% casting
an evil eye all around him upon the cities of
other men, and thinking that godliness 7 con-
sists in wealth and in the greatness of cities,
and making light of the heritage of God to
which he had been appointed ; not knowing
that * where ' even * two or three are gathered
in the name of the ' Lord, ' there ' is the
Lord ' in the midst of them ; ' not considering
the words of the Apostle, 'I will not boast
in another man's labours ; ' not perceiving the
charge which he has given, 'Art thou bound
unto a wife? seek not to be loosed.' For
if this expression apphes to a wife, how much
more does it apply to a Church, and to the
same Episcopate; to which whosoever is
bound ought not to seek another, lest he
prove an adulterer according to holy Scripture.
7. But though conscious of these his own
misdoings, he has boldly undertaken to arraign
the appointment of Athanasius, to which
honourable testimony has been borne by all,
and he ventures to reproach him with his
deposition, though he has been deposed him-
self, and has a standing proof of his deposition
in the appointment of another in his room.
How could either he or Theognius ^ depose an-
other, after they had been deposed themselves,
which is sufficiently proved by the appoint-
ment of others in their room ? For you know
very well that there were appointed instead of
them Amphion to Nicomedia and Chrestus
to Nicaea, in consequence of their own impiety
and connection with the Arian madmen, who
were rejected by the Ecumenic Council. But
while they desire to set aside that true
Council, they endeatour to give that name
to their own unlawful combination 9 ; while
they are unwilling that the decrees of the
Council should be enforced, they desire to
enforce their own decisions ; and they use the
name of a Council, while they refuse to submit
themselves to one so great as this. Thus they
care not for Councils, but only pretend to do
so in order that they may root out the orthodox,
and annul the decrees of the true and great
Council against the Arians, in support of
whom, both now and heretofore, they have
ventured to assert these falsehoods against
** i.e. Constantinople, on the expulsion of Paul.
7 1 Tim. vi. 5 ; Matt.xviii. 20; 2 Cor. x. 15- 1 Cor. vii. 27.
8 Or Theognis ; he was, as well as Eusebius, a pupil of Lucian's,
and was deposed together with him after the Nicene Council for
communicating with Arians. [They were not ecclesiastically de-
posed, but exiled by the Emperor, see Prolegg. ch ii. §§ 3 (i)
and (2) c, 6 (i).] Const.nntine banished them to Gaul; they
were recalled in the course of two or three years. He was dead
by the date of the Council of Sardica.
9 Eusebian Council of Tyre, a.d. 335.
the Bishop Athanasius. For their former
statements resembled those they now falsely
make, viz., that disorderly meetings were held
at his entrance'", with lamentation and mourn-
ing, the people indignantly refusing to receive
him. Now such was not the case, but, quite
the contrary, joy and cheerfulness prevailed,
and the people ran together, hastening to
obtain the desired sight of him. The churches
were full of rejoicings, and thanksgivings were
offered up to the Lord everywhere ; and all
the Ministers and Clergy beheld him with such
feelings, that their souls were possessed with
delight, and they esteemed that the happiest
day of their lives. Why need we mention the
inexpressible joy that prevailed among us
Bishops, for we have already said that we
counted ourselves to have been partakers in
his sufferings?
8. Now this being confessedly the truth of the
matter, although it is very differently repre-
sented by them, what weight can be attached
to that Council or trial of which they make
their boast? Since they presume thus to
interfere in a case which they did not witness,
whicli they have not examined, and for which
they did not meet, and to write as though
they were assured of the truth of their state-
ments, how can they claim credit respecting
these matters for the consideration of whicli
they say that they did meet together ? Will it
not rather be believed that they have acted
both in the one case and in the otiier out of
enmity to us ? For what kind of a Council
of Bishops was then held ? Was it an assembly
which aimed at the truth ? Was not almost
every one among them our enemy ' ? Did not
the attack of Eusebius and his fellows upon
us proceed from their zeal for the Arian
madness? Did they not urge on the others of
their party? Have we not always written
against them as professing the doctrines of
Arius ? Was not Eusebius of Caesarea in
Palestine accused by our confessors of sacri-
ficing to idols "^ ? Was not George proved to
have been deposed by the blessed Alexanders?
Were not they charged with various offences,
some with this, some with that ?
How then could such men entertain the
purpose of holding a meeting against us ?
»o On his return from Gaul, Nov. 23, a.d. 337. [Proleee. ch. ii.
§6(1).] 'Cf. §77.
2 At the Council of Tyre, Potamo, an Egyptian Bishop and
Confessor asked Eusebius what had happened to hiin in prison
during the persecution, Epiph. Hcer. 63, 7, as if hinting at his
cowardice. It appears that Etisebius was prisoner at Caesarea with
S. Pamphilus ; yet he never mentions the fact himself, which is
unlike him, if it was producible. [The insinuation of Potammon
was groundless : see Die. C. Biog. ii. 311.]
3 George, Bishop of Laodicea, had been degraded when a priest
by S. Alexander, for his profligate habits as well as his Arianism.
Athan. speaks of him elsewhere as reprobated even by his party.
de Fug. 26. [Cf. § 49, de Syn. 17. Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) c, 2.]
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
to;
How can they have the boldness to call that
a Council, at which a Count presided, which
an executioner attended, and where an usher *
instead of the Deacons of the Church intro-
duced us into Court ; and where the Count
only spoke, and all present held their peace,
or rather obeyed his directions s? The removal
of those Bishops who seemed to deserve it,
was prevented at his desire; and when he gave
the order we were dragged about by soldiers ; —
or rather Eusebius and his fellows gave the
order, and he was subservient to their will.
In short, dearly beloved, what kind of Council
was that, the object of which was banishment
and murder at the pleasure of the Emperor?
And of what nature were their charges ? — for
here is matter of still greater astonishment.
There was one Arsenius whom they declared
to have been murdered ; and they also com-
plained that a chalice belonging to the sacred
mysteries had been broken.
Now Arsenius is alive, and prays to be
admitted to our communion. He waits for
no other testimony to prove that he is still
living, but himself confesses it, writing in his
own person to our brother Athanasius, whom
they positively asserted to be his murderer.
The impious wretches were not ashamed to
accuse him of having murdered a man who
was at a great distance from him, being
separated by so great a distance, whether by
sea or land, and whose abode at that time no
one knew. Nay, they even had the boldness
to remove him out of sight, and place him in
concealment, though he had suffered no injury;
and, if it had been possible, they would have
transported him to another world, nay, or have
taken him from life in earnest, so that either
by a true or false statement of his murder they
might in good earnest destroy Athanasius.
But thanks to divine Providence for this also,
which permitted them not to succeed in their
injustice, but presented Arsenius ^ alive to the
eyes of all men, who has clearly proved their
conspiracy and calumnies. He does not with-
draw from us as murderers, nor hate us as
having injured him (for indeed he has suffered
no evil at all) ; but he desires to hold com-
munion with us ; he wishes to be numbered
among us, and has written to this effect
9. Nevertheless they laid their plot against
Athanasius, accusing him of having murdered
a person who was still alive ; and those same
men are the authors of his banishment 7. For
it was not the father of the Emperors, but
their calumnies, that sent him into exile.
Consider whether this is not the truth. When
nothing was discovered to the prejudice of
'* Conventarius.
6 §65.
S //z'st. Art. II, and below §§ 36, 71.
7 By Constantine into Gaul, a.d. 336.
our fellow-minister Athanasius, but still the
Count threatened him with violence, and was
very zealous against him, the Bishop ^ fled
from this violence and went up 9 to the most
religious Emperor, where he protested against
the Count and their conspiracy against him,
and requested either that a lawful Council of
Bishops might be assembled, or that the
Emperor would himself receive his defence
concerning the charges they brought against
him. Upon this the Emperor wrote in anger,
summoning them before him, and declaring that
he would hear the cause himself, and for that
purpose he also ordered a Council to be held.
Whereupon Eusebius and his fellows went up
and falsely charged Athanasius, not with the
same offences which they had published against
him at Tyre, but with an intention of detaining
the vessels laden with corn, as though Atha-
nasius had been the man to pretend that he
could stop the exports of corn from Alexandria
to Constantinople '°.
Certain of our friends were present at the
palace with Athanasius, and heard the threats
of the Emperor upon receiving this report.
And when Athanasius cried out upon the
calumny, and positively declared that it was
not true, (for how, he argued, should he
a poor man, and in a private station, be able
to do such a thing ?) Eusebius did not hesitate
publicly to repeat the charge, and swore that
Athanasius was a rich man, and powerful, and
able to do anything; in order that it might
thence be supposed that he had used this lan-
guage. Such was the accusation these venerable
Bishops proffered against him. But the grace
of God proved superior to their wickedness,
for it moved the pious Emperor to mercy, who
instead of death passed upon him the sentence
of banishment. Thus their calumnies, and
nothing else, were the cause of this. For the
Emperor, in the letter which he previously
wrote, complained of their conspiracy, cen-
sured their machinations, and condemned the
Meletians as unscrupulous and deserving of
execration ; in short, expressed himself in the
severest terms concerning them. For he was
greatly moved when he heard the story of
the dead alive; he was moved at hearing of
8 The circumstances of this appeal, which are relcited by Athan.
below, § 36, are thus summed up by Gibbon ; " Before the final
sentence could be pronounced at Tyre, the intrepid primate threw
himself into a bark which was ready to hoist sail for the imperial
city. The request of a formal audience might have been opposed
or eluded; but Athanasius concealed his arrival, watched the
moment of Constantine's return from an adjacent villa, and boldly
encountered his angry sovereign as he passed on horseback thro igh
the principal street of Constantinople. So strange an appaiition
excited his surprise and indignation ; and the guarils were ordered
to remove the importunate suitor ; but his resentment was subdued
by involuntary respect ; and the haughty spirit of the Emperor uas
awed by the courage and eloquence of a Bishop, who implored his
justice and awakened his cofascience." Decl. and Fall, xxi. Athcin.
was a small man in person. 9 i.e. to Constantinople. '° § 87.
io6
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
murder in the case of one alive, and not de-
prived of life. We have sent you the letter.
lo. But these marvellous men, Eusebius and
his fellows, to make a show of refuting the truth
of the case, and the statements contained in
this letter, put forward the name of a Council,
and ground its proceedings upon the authority
of the Emperor. Hence the attendance of a
Count at their meeting, and the soldiers as
guards of the Bishops, and royal letters com-
pelling the attendance of any persons whom
they required. But observe here the strange
character of their machinations, and the incon-
sistency of their bold measures, so that by
some means or other they may take Athanasius
away from us. For if as Bishops they claimed
for themselves alone the judgment of the case,
what need was there for the attendance of
a Count and soldiers ? or how was it that they
assembled under the sanction of royal letters ?
Or if they required the Emperor's countenance
and wished to derive their authority from him,
why were they then annulling his judgment?
and when he declared in the letter which
he wrote, that the Meletians were calum-
niators, unscrupulous, and that Athanasius was
most innocent, and made nmch stir about the
pretended murder of the living, how was it
that they determined that the Meletians had
spoken the truth, and that Athanasius was
guilty of the offence ; and were not ashamed
to make the living dead, living both after the
Emperor's judgment, and at the time when
they met together, and who even until this
day is amongst us? So much concerning the
case of Arsenius.
II. And as for the cup belonging to the
mysteries, what was it, or where was it broken
by Macarius ? for this is the report which they
spread up and down. But as for Athanasius,
even his accusers would not have ventured to
blame him, had they not been suborned by
them. However, they attribute the origin of
the offence to him ; although it ought not to
be imputed even to Macarius who is clear
of it. And they are not ashamed to parade
the sacred mysteries before Catechumens, and
worse than that, even before heathens ' :
whereas, they ought to attend to what is
written, 'It is good to keep close the secret
of a king ^ ; ' and as the Lord has charged us,
'Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,
neither cast ye your pearls before swine 3.'
We ought not then to parade the holy mys-
' This period, when Christianity was acknowledged by the state
but not embraced by the population, is just the time when we hear
most of this Reserve as a principle. While Christians were but
a sect, persecution enforced a discipline, and when they were com-
mensurate with the nation, faith made it unnecessary. We are now
returned to the state of the fourth century.
2 Tob. xii. 7. 3 Matt. vii. 6.
teries before the uninitiated, lest the heathen
in their ignorance deride them, and the Cate-
chumens being over -curious be offended.
However, what was the cup, and where
and before whom was it broken ? It is the
Meletians who make the accusation, who are
not worthy of the least credit, for they have
been schismatics and enemies of the Church,
not of a recent date, but from the times of
the blessed Peter, Bishop and Martyr \ They
formed a conspiracy against Peter himself;
they calumniated his successor Achillas ; they
accused Alexander even before the Emperor ;
and being thus well versed in these arts, they
have now transferred their enmity to Athana-
sius, acting altogether in accordance with
their former wickedness. For as they slan-
dered those that have been before him, so now
they have slandered him. But their calumnies
and false accusations have never prevailed
against him until now, that they have got
Eusebius and his fellows for their assistants
and patrons, on account of the impiety which
these have adopted from the Arian madmen,
which has led them to conspire against many
Bishops, and among the rest Athanasius.
Now the place where they say the cup
was broken, was not a Church ; there was no
Presbyter in occupation of the place ; and
the day on which they say that Macarius did
the deed, was not the Lord's day. Since then
there was no church there ; since there was
no one to perform the sacred office; and
since the day did not require the use of
it 5 ; what was this ctip belonging to the
mysteries, and when, or where was it
broken ? There are many cups, it is plain,
both in private houses, and in the public
market ; and if a person breaks one of
them, he is not guilty of impiety. But the
cup which belongs to the mysteries, and
which if it be broken intentionally, makes the
perpetrator of the deed an impious person, is
found only among those who lawfully preside.
This is the only description that can be given
of this kind of cup ; there is none other ; this
you legally give to the people to drink ; this
you have received according to the canon of
the Church ^ ; this belongs only to those
who preside over the Catholic Church,
for to you only it appertains to admi-
nister the Blood of Christ, and to none
besides. But as he who breaks the cup be-
longing to the mysteries is an impious person,
much more impious is he who treats the
4 [Cf. § 59, and £fi. j^g. 22, Prolegg. ch. ii. § 2 init.']
5 This seems to imply that the Holy Communion was only
celebrated on Sundays in the Egyptian Churches. [Cf. §§ 63, 74,
76.] 6 Vid. Can. Ap. 65.
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
107
Blood of Christ with contumely : and he
does so who ' does this 7 ' contrary to the rule
of the Church. (We say this, not as if a
cup even of the schismatics was broken
by Macarius, for there was no cup there
at all ; how should there be ? where there was
neither Lord's house nor any one belonging
to the Church, nay, it was not the time of the
celebration of the mysteries). Now such a
person is the notorious Ischyras, who was
never appointed to his office by the Church,
and when Alexander admitted the Presbyters
that had been ordained by Meletius, he was
not even numbered amongst them ; and there-
fore did not receive ordination even from that
quarter. .
13. By what means then did Ischyras
become a Presbyter? who was it that ordained
him ? was it CoUuthus ? for this is the only
supposition that remains. But it is well known,
and no one has any doubt about the matter,
that Colluthus died a Presbyter, and that
every ordination of his was invalid, and that
all that were ordained by him during the
schism were reduced to the condition of
laymen, and in that rank appear in the con-
gregation. How then can it be believed that
a private person, occupying a private house,
had in his possession a sacred chalice ? But
the truth is, they gave the name of Presbyter
at the time to a private person, and gratified
him with this title to support him in his
iniquitous conduct towards us ; and now as
the reward of his accusations they procure for
him the erection of a Church ^. So that this
man had then no Church ; but as the reward
of his malice and subserviency to them in
accusing us, he receives now what he had not
before ; nay, perhaps they have even remu-
nerated his services with the Episcopate, for
so he goes about reporting, and accordingly
behaves towards us with great insolence. Thus
are such rewards as these now bestowed by
Bishops upon accusers and calumniators ;
though indeed it is reasonable, in the case
of an accomplice, that as they have made him
a partner in their proceedings, so they should
also make him their associate in their own
Episcopate. But this is not all ; give ear yet
further to their proceedings at that time.
13. Being unable to prevail against the truth,
though they had thus set themselves in array
against it, and Ischyras having proved nothing
at Tyre, but being shewn to be a calum-
niator, and the calumny ruining their plot,
they defer proceedings for fresh evidence, and
profess that they are going to send to the Ma-
reotis certain of their party to enquire diligently
7 I Cor. xi. 25.
8 Cf. § 85.
into the matter. Accordingly they dispatched
secredy, with the assistance of the civil power,
persons to whom we openly objected on many
accounts, as being of the party of Arius, and
therefore our enemies ; namely, Diognius 9,
Maris, Theodorus, Macedonius, and two
others, young both in years and mind 9,
Ursacius and Valens from Pannonia ; who,
after they had undertaken this long journey
for the purpose of sitting in judgment upon
their enemy, set out again from Tyre for
Alexandria. They did not shrink from be-
coming witnesses themselves, although they
were the judges, but openly adopted every
means of furthering their design, and under-
took any labour or journey whatsoever in order
to bring to a successful issue the conspiracy
which was in progress. They left the Bishop
Athanasius detained in a foreign country while
they themselves entered their enemy's city, as
if to have their revel both against his Church
and against his people. And what was more
outrageous still, they took with them the
accuser Ischyras, but would not permit Maca-
rius, the accused person, to accompany them,
but left him in custody at Tyre. For ' Maca-
rius the Presbyter of Alexandria' was made
answerable for the charge far and near.
14. They therefore entered Alexandria alone
with the accuser, their partner in lodging,
board, and cup ; and taking with them "Phi-
lagrius the Prefect of Egypt they proceeded
to the Mareotis, and there carried on the so-
called investigation by themselves, all their
own way, with the forementioned person.
Although the Presbyters frequently begged
that they might be present, they would not
permit them. The Presbyters both of the city
and of the whole country desired to attend,
that they might detect who and whence the
persons were who were suborned by Ischyras.
But they forbade the Ministers to be present,
while they carried on the examination con-
cerning church, cup, table, and the holy
things, before the heathen; nay, worse than
that, they summoned heathen witnesses during
the enquiry concerning a cup belonging to
the mysteries; and those persons who they
affirmed were taken out of the way by Atha-
nasius by summons of the Receiver-general^
and they knew not where in the world they
were, these same individuals they brought
forward before themselves and the Prefect
only, and avowedly used their testimony, whom
they affirmed without shame to have been
secreted by the Bishop Athanasius.
9 Vid. also E/. ^g: 7. Euseb. Vit. C. iv. 43. Hilar, ad Const
i. 5. Fragm. ii. 12 [' Diognius ' is another form of ' Theognius '
or Theognis. See Prolegg. ch. ii. § 5.I
io8
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
But here too their only object is to effect
his death, and so they again pretend that per-
sons are dead who are still alive, following the
same method they adopted in the case of
Arsenius. For the men are living, and are to
be seen in their own country ; but to you who
are at a great distance from the spot they
make a great stir about the matter as
though they had disappeared, in order that, as
the evidence is so far removed from you, they
may falsely accuse our brother -minister, as
though he used violence and the civil power ;
whereas they themselves have in all respects
acted by means of that power and the coun-
tenance of others. For their proceedings in
the Mareotis were parallel to those at Tyre;
and as there a Count attended with military
assistance, and would permit nothing either to
be said or done contrary to their pleasure, so
here also the Prefect of Egypt was present
with a band of men, frightening all the mem-
bers of the Church, and permitting no one to
give true testimony. And what was the
strangest thing of all, the persons who came,
whether as judges or witnesses, or, what was
more likely, in order to serve their own pur-
poses and those of Eusebius, lived in the same
place with the accuser, even in his house, and
there seemed to carry on the investigation as
they pleased.
15. We suppose you are not ignorant what
outrages they committed at Alexandria ; for they
are reported everywhere. Naked swords '° were
at work against the holy virgins and brethren ;
scourges were at work against their persons, es-
teemed honourable in the sight of God, so that
their feet were lamed by the stripes, whose souls
are whole and sound in purity and all good
works '. The trades were excited against them ;
and the heathen multitude was set to strip
them naked, to beat them, wantonly to insult
them, and to threaten them with their altars
and sacrifices. And one coarse fellow, as
though license had now been given them by
the Prefect in order to gratify the Bishops,
took hold of a virgin by the hand, and dragged
her towards an altar that happened to be near,
imitating the practice of compelling to offer
sacrifice in time of persecution. When this
was done, the virgins took to flight, and a
shout of laughter was raised by the heathen
against the Church ; the Bishops being in the
place, and occupying the very house where this
was going on ; and from which, in order to
obtain favour with them, the virgins were
assaulted with naked swords, and were exposed
to all kinds of danger, and insult, and wanton
violence. And this treatment they received
on a fast-day % and at the hands of persons
who themselves were feasting with the Bishops
indoors.
16. Foreseeing these things, and reflecting
that the entrance of enemies into a place is no
ordinary calamity, we protested against this
commission. And Alexanders, Bishop of Thes-
salonica, considering the same, wrote to the
people residing there, discovering the con-
spiracy, and testifying of the plot. They in-
deed reckon him to be one of themselves, and
account him a partner in their designs ; but
they only prove thereby the violence they have
exercised towards him. For even the profligate
Ischyras himself was only induced by fear and
violence to proceed in the matter, and was
obliged by force to undertake the accusation.
As a proof of this, he wrote himself to our
brother Athanasius*, confessing that nothing
of the kind that was alleged had taken place
there, but that he was suborned to make a
false statement. This declaration he made,
though he was never admitted by Athanasius
as a Presbyter, nor received such a title of grace
from him, nor was entrusted by way of recom-
pense with the erection of a Church, nor
expected the bribe of a Bishopric ; all of which
he obtained from them in return for under-
taking the accusation. Moreover, his whole
family held communion with uss, which they
would not have done had they been injured in
the slightest degree.
1 7. Now to prove that these things are facts
and not mere assertions, we have the testi-
mony * of all the Presbyters of the Mareotis ?,
who always accompany the Bishop in his
visitations, and who also wrote at the time
against Ischyras. But neither those of them
who came to Tyre were allowed to declare the
truth 2, nor could those who remained in the
Mareotis obtain permission to refute the
calumnies of Ischyras 9. The copies also of the
letters of Alexander, and of the Presbyters, and
of Ischyras will prove the same thing. We
have sent also the letter of the father of the
Emperors, in which he expresses his indigna-
tion that the murder of Arsenius was charged
upon any one while the man was still alive ; as
also his astonishment at the variable and in-
'0 Cf. Encycl. 3, Apol. Const. 33.
' Hist. Arian. 12.
2 [Not in Lent, for the commission were at Alexandria in
September, see the date of the protest, infra, § 76]
3 This Alexander had been one of the Nicene Fathers, in 325,
and had the office of publishing their decrees in Macedonia, Greece,
&c. He was at the Council of Jerusalem ten years after, at which
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was consecrated, and afterwards
Arius admitted to communion. His influence witli t)ie Court party
seems to have been great, judging from Count Dionysius's tone
in speaking of him. Infr. §§ 66, 80, 81. 4 Infr. § 64.
S Vid. infr. § 63 fin. § 85 fin. _ 6_ Infr. § 74.
7 The district, called Mareotis from a neighbouring lake, lay
in the territory and diocese of Alexandria, to the south-west. It
consisted of various large villages, with handsome Churches, and
resident Priests, and of hamlets which had none ; of the latter
was " Irene of Secontarurus," (infr. § 85.) where Ischyras lived.
8 Infr. § 79. 9 § 72 fin.
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
[09
consistent character of their accusations with
respect to the cup; since at one time they
accused the Presbyter Macarius, at another
the Bishop Athanasius, of having broken it
with his hands. He declares also on the one
hand that the Meletians are calumniators, and
on the other that Athanasius is perfectly in-
nocent.
And are not the Meletians calumniators, and
above all John ^°, who after coming into the
Church, and communicating with us, after
condemning himself, and no longer taking any
part in the proceedings respecting the cup,
when he saw Eusebius and his fellows zealously
supporting the Arian madmen, though they had
not the daring to co-operate with them openly,
but were attempting to employ others as their
masks, undertook a character, as an actor in
the heathen theatres ' ? The subject of the
drama was a contest of Arians ; the real de-
sign of the piece being their success, but John
and his partizans being put on the stage and
playing the parts, in order that under colour
of these, the supporters of the Arians in the
garb of judges might drive away the enemies
of their impiety, firmly establish their impious
doctrines, and bring the Arians into the
Church. And those who wish to drive out
true religion strive all they can to prevail by
irreligion ; they who have chosen the part
of that impiety which wars against Christ,
endeavour to destroy the enemies thereof, as
though they were impious persons; and they
impute to us the breaking of the cup, for
the purpose of making it appear that Athana-
sius, equally with themselves, is guilty of
impiety towards Christ.
For what means this mention of a cup be-
longing to the mysteries by them? Whence
comes this religious regard for the cup among
those who support impiety towards Christ?
Whence comes it that Christ's cup is known to
them who know not Christ? How can they
who profess to honour that cup, dishonour
the God of the cup? or how can they who
lament over the cup, seek to murder the Bishop
who celebrates the mysteries therewith? for
they would have murdered him, had it been
in their power. And how can they who lament
the loss of the throne that was Episcopally
covered ^, seek to destroy the Bishop that sat
upon it, to the end that both the throne may
be without its Bishop, and that the people
may be deprived of godly doctrine? It was
not then the cup, nor the murder, nor any
of those portentous deeds they talk about, that
induced them to act thus ; but the foremen-
** Arcaph. infr. 65 fin., head of the Meletians.
• Vid. infr. § 37, 46. and 1^1? Syn. 32, note.
» Cathedra; velatse, see Bingh. viii. 6. % 10.
tioned heresy of the Arians, for the sake of
which they conspired against Athanasius and
other Bishops, and still continue to wage war
against the Church.
Who are they that have really been the
cause of murders and banishments ? Is it not
these? Who are they that, availing them-
selves of external support, conspire against the
Bishops? Are not Eusebius and his fellows
the men, and not Athanasius, as they say in
their letters ? Both he and others have suffered
at their hands. Even at the time of which we
speak, four Presbyters 3 of Alexandria, though
they had not even proceeded to Tyre, were
banished by their means. Who then are they
whose conduct calls for tears and lamenta-
tions? Is it not they, who after they have
been guilty of one course of persecution, do
not scruple to add to it a second, but have
recourse to all manner of falsehood, in order
that they may destroy a Bishop who will not
give way to their impious heresy? Hence
arises the enmity of Eusebius and his fellows ;
hence their proceedings at Tyre ; hence their i
pretended trials ; hence also now the letters '
which they have written even without any
trial, expressing the utmost confidence in their
statements ; hence their calumnies before the
father of the Emperors, and before the most .-
religious Emperors themselves.
1 8. For it is necessary that you should know
what is now reported to the prejudice of our
fellow-minister Athanasius, in order that you
may thereby be led to condemn their wicked-
ness, and may perceive that they desire nothing
else but to murder him. A quantity of corn was
given by the father of the Emperors for the
support of certain widows, partly of Libya, and
partly certain out of Egypt They have all re-
ceived it up to this time, Athanasius getting
nothing therefrom, but the trouble of assisting
them. But now, although the recipients them-
selves make no complaint, but acknowledge -^
that they have received it, Athanasius has
been accused of selling all the corn, and ap-
propriating the profits to his own use : and the
Emperor wrote to this effect about it, charging ^
him with the offence in consequence of the
calumnies which had been raised against him.
Now who are they which have raised these
calumnies? Is it not those who after they
have been guilty of one course of persecution,
scruple not to set on foot another? Who are
the authors of those letters which are said to
have come from the Emperor? Are not the
Arians, who are so zealous against Athanasius,
and scruple not to speak and write anything
against him ? No one would pass over persons
3 Vid. their names infr. § 40.
no
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
who have acted as they have done, in order to
entertain suspicion of others. Nay, the proof
of their calumny appears to be most evident,
for they are anxious under cover of it, to take
away the corn from the Church, and to give it
to the Arians. And this circumstance more
than any other, brings the matter home to
tlie authors of this design and their principals,
who scrupled neither to set on foot a charge
of murder against Athanasius, as a base
means of prejudicing the Emperor against him,
nor yet to take away from the Clergy of the
Church the subsistence of the poor, in order
that in fact they might make gain for the
heretics.
19. We have sent also the testimony of our
fellow -ministers in Libya, Pentapolis, and
Egypt, from which likewise you may learn the
false accusations which have been brought
against Athanasius. And these things they do,
in order that, the professors of true godliness
being henceforth induced by fear to remain
quiet, the heresy of the impious Arians may
be brought in in its stead. But thanks
be to your piety, dearly beloved, that you
have frequently anathematized the Arians in
your letters, and have never given them ad-
mittance into the Church. The exposure of
Eusebius and his fellows is also easy and ready
at hand. For behold, after their former letters
concerning the Arians, of which also we have
sent you copies, they now openly stir up the
Arian madmen against the Church, though the
whole Catholic Church has anathematized
them; they have appointed a Bishop^ over
them ; they distract the Churches with threats
and alarms, that they may gain assistants in their
impiety in every part. Moreover, they send
Deacons to the Arian madmen, who openly join
their assemblies ; they write letters to them,
and receive answers from them, thus making
schisms in the Church, and holding commu-
nion with them ; and they send to every part,
commending their heresy, and repudiating the
Church, as you will perceive from the letters
they have addressed to the Bishop of Rome ^,
and perhaps to yourselves also. You perceive
therefore, dearly beloved, that these things are
not undeserving of vengeance : they are indeed
dreadful and alien from the doctrine of Christ.
Wherefore we have assembled together, and
have written to you, to request of your Christian
wisdom to receive this our declaration and sym-
pathize with our brother Athanasius, and to
shew your indignation against Eusebius and his
fellows who have essayed such things, in order
that such malice and wickedness may no longer
prevail against the Church. We call upon you
» Pistus.
2 Vid. infr. § 31.
to be the avengers of such injustice, reminding
you of the injunction of the Apostle, ' Put away
from among yourselves that wicked person 3.'
Wicked indeed is their conduct, and unworthy
of your communion. Wherefore give no further
heed to them, though they should again write
to you against the Bishop Athanasius (for all
that proceeds from them is false) ; not even
though they subscribe their letter with names ♦
of Egyptian Bishops. For it is evident that it
will not be we who write, but the Meletians s,
who have ever been schismatics, and who even
unto this day make disturbances and raise
factions in the Churches. For they ordain
improper persons, and all but heathens; and
they are guilty of such actions as we are
ashamed to set down in writing, but which you
may learn from those whom we have sent unto
you, who will also deliver to you our letter.
20. Thus wrote the Bishops of Egypt to all
Bishops, and to Julius, Bishop of Rome.
CHAPTER IL
Letter of Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch.
Eusebius and his fellows wrote also to Julius,
and thinking to frighten me, requested him to
call a council, and to be himself the judge, if
he so pleased ^. When therefore I went up to
Rome, Julius wrote to Eusebius and his fellows
as was suitable, and sent moreover two of his
own Presbyters?, Elpidius and Philoxenus^
But they, when they heard of me, were thrown
into confusion, as not expecting my going up
thither ; and they declined the proposed Coun-
cil, alleging unsatisfactory reasons for so doing,
but in truth they were afraid lest the things
should be proved against them which Valens
and Ursacius afterwards confessed 9. How-
ever, more than fifty Bishops assembled, in
the place where the Presbyter Vito held his
congregation ; and they acknowledged my de-
fence, and gave me the confirmation' both
of their communion and their love. On
3 I Cor. V. 13. _
4 The Eusebians availed themselves of the subscriptions of the
Meletians, as at Philippopolis. Hilar. Fragin. 3. __5 Infr. §73.
t" A.n. 339. vid. Hist. Arian. t 'i- [Socrales (iii. 5) and Sozo-
menus (ii. 8, &c.), confuse the Amiochene Synod, whicli sent the
letter referred to, with the Synod of the ' Dedication ' held in 341
A.D., after the receipt of the letter of Julius.]
7 Vito and Vincentius, Presbyters, had represented Silvester
at Nicaea. Liberius sent Vincentius, Bishop, and MarcelKis, Bi-
shop, to Constantius ; and again Lucifer, Bishop, and Eusebius,
Bishop. [The practice was common to all bishops, not peculiar to
that of Rome.] S. Basil suggests that D.amasus should send legates
into the East, Ep. 69. The Council of Sardica, Can. 5, recognised
the Pope's power of sending legates into foreign Provinces to hear
certain appeals ; " ut de Zrt/tf'?-^ IKO Ptesbyterum mittat." [Jl con-
ferred the power (t) upon Julius (2) without any right of initiative,
in Can. 3 ; Can. 5 simply regulates the exercise of the power thus
conferred. The genuineness of these Canons has been disputed : at
Rome they were quoled in the fifth century as ' Nicene.'] vid.
Thomassin. de Eccl. Disc. Part 1. ii. 117. LD- C. B. iii. 530, D, C. A.
197, 1658.]
» [Date uncertain ; see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 6 (i) sub Jin., and note
there.] 9 Infr. § 58. ' Vid. infr. § 36.
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
Ill
the other hand, they expressed great indig-
nation against Eusebius and his fellows, and
requested that Julius would write to the follow-
ing effect to those of their number who had
written to him. Which accordingly he did,
and sent it by the hand of Count Gabianus.
The Letter of Julius.
Julius to his dearly beloved brethren ',
Danius, Flacillus, Narcissus, Eusebius, Maris,
Macedonius, Theodorus, and their friends, who
have written to me from Antioch, sends health
in the Lord.
21. I have read your letters which was
brought to me by my Presbyters Elpidius and
Philoxenus, and I am surprised to find that,
whereas I wrote to you in charity and with
conscious sincerity, you have replied to me
in an unbecoming and contentious temper;
for the pride and arrogance of the writers
is plainly exhibited in that letter. Yet such
feelings are inconsistent with the Christian
faith ; for what was written in a charitable
spirit ought likewise to be answered in a spirit
of charity and not of contention. And was
it not a token of charity to send Presbyters
to S5rmpathize with them that are in suffering,
and to desire those who had written to me
to come thither, that the questions at issue
might obtain a speedy settlement, and all
things be duly ordered, so that our brethren
might no longer be exposed to suffering, and
that you might escape further calumny? But
something seems to shew that your temper
is such, as to force us to conclude that even in
the terms in which you appeared to pay honour
to us, you have expressed yourselves under the
disguise of irony. The Presbyters also whom
we sent to you, and who ought to have re-
turned rejoicing, did on the contrary return
sorrowful on account of the proceedings they
had witnessed among you. And I, when I
had read your letter, after much consideration,
kept it to myself, thinking that after all some of
you would come, and there would be no need
* By Danius, which had been considered the same name as
Dianius, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Montfaucon in loc.
understands the notorious Arian Bishop of Nicaea, called variously
Diognius (supr. § 13.), Theognius (infr. § 28.), Theognis (I'hilost.
Hist. ii. J .) Theogonius, (Theod. Hist. i. 19.), and assigns some
ingenious and probable reasons for his supposition. [' Danius ' was
the Bishop of Caesarea in Cappad., he also signs at Philippopolis.
See D.C.B. under Dianius and Basil.] Flacillus, Arian Bishop
of Antioch, as Athan. names him, is called Flacillus (in S. Jerome s
Chrotu'con, p. 785.), Placitus (Soz. iii. 5.), Flacitus (Theod. Hist.
i. 21.). Theodorus was Arian Bishop of Heraclea, whose Comments
on the Psalms are supposed to be those which bear his name in
Corderius's Catena. [He was not a thorough Arian.]
3 Some of the topics contained in the Eusebian Letter are speci-
fied in Julius's answer. It acknowledged, besides, the high dignity
of the [church] of Rome, as being a "School (<^povTi.<nripiov) of
Apostles and a Metropolis of orthodoxy from the beginning," but
added that "doctors came to it from the east; and they ought
not themselves to hold the second place, for they were superior
in virtue, though not in their Church." And they said that tliey
would hold communion with Julius if he would agree to their
depositions and substitutions in the Eastern Sees. Soz. iii. 8.
to bring it forward, lest if it should be openly
exhibited, it should grieve many of our bre-
thren here. But when no one arrived, and
it became necessary that the letter should be
produced, I declare to you, they were all
astonished, and were hardly able to believe
that such a letter had been written by you at
all ; for it is expressed in terms of contention
rather than of charity.
Now if the author of it wrote with an
ambition of exhibiting his power of language,
such a practice surely is more suitable for
other subjects : in ecclesiastical matters, it
is not a display of eloquence that is needed,
but the observance of Apostolic Canons,
and an earnest care not to offend one of the
little ones of the Church. For it were better
for a man, according to the word of the
Church, that a millstone were hanged about
his neck, and that he were drowned in the
sea, than that he should offend even one of the
little ones*. But if such a letter was written,
because certain persons have been aggrieved
on account of their meanness of spirit towards
one another (for I will not impute it to all) ; it
were better not to entertain any such feeling
of offence at all, at least not to let the sun go
down upon their vexation ; and certainly not
to give it room to exhibit itself in writing.
22. Yet what has been done that is a just
cause of vexation ? or in what respect was my
letter to you such ? Was it, that I invited you
to be present at a council ? You ought rather
to have received the proposal with joy. Those
who have confidence in their proceedings, or
as they choose to term them, in their deci-
sions, are not wont to be angry, if such deci-
sion is inquired into by others ; they rather
shew all boldness, seeing that if they have
given a just decision, it can never prove to
be the reverse. The Bishops who assembled
in the great Council of Nicsea agreed, not
without the will of God, that the decisions
of one council should be examined in an-
other s, to the end that the judges, having
before their eyes that other trial which was
to follow, might be led to investigate matters
with the utmost caution, and that the parties
concerned in their sentence might have assur-
ance that the judgment they received was
just, and not dictated by the enmity of their
4 Matt, xviii. 6.
5 As this determination does not find a place among the now
received Canons of the Council, the passage in the text becomes
of great moment in the argument in favour of the twenty Canons
extant in Greek being but a portion of those passed at Nicaea. vid.
Alber. Dissert, in Hist. Eccles. vii. Abraham Ecchellensis has
argued on the same side (apud Colet. Concil. t. ii. p. 399. Ed. Ven.
1728), also Baronius, though not so strongly, Ann. 325. nn. 157 &c.
and Montfaucon in loc. Natalis Alexander, Sac. 4. Dissert. 28
argues against the larger number, and Tillemont, Mem. vi. 674.
[But it is far more likely that Julius is making a free use of Can.
Nic. 5 ; the Arabic canons are apparently referred to in the
above note : no one now defends them.]
112
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
former judges. Now if you are unwilling
that such a practice should be adopted in
your own case, though it is of ancient stand-
ing, and has been noticed and recommended
by the great Council, your refusal is not be-
coming ; for it is unreasonable that a custom
which had once obtained in the Church, and
been established by councils, should be set
aside by a few individuals.
For a further reason they cannot justly take
offence in this point. When the persons whom
you, Eusebius and his fellows, dispatched with
your letters, I mean Macarius the Presbyter, and
Martyrius and Hesychius the Deacons, arrived
here, and found that they were unable to
withstand the arguments of the Presbyters
who came from Athanasius, but were con-
futed and exposed on all sides, they then
requested me to call a Council together, and to
write to Alexandria to the Bishop Athanasius,
and also to Eusebius and his fellows, in
order that a just judgment might be given in
presence of all parties. And they undertook
in that case to prove all the charges which
had been brought against Athanasius. For
Martyrius and Hesychius had been pubUcly
refuted by us, and the Presbyters of the Bishop
Athanasius had withstood them with great
confidence : indeed, if one must tell the truth,
Martyrius and his fellows had been utterly over-
thrown ; and this it was that led them to
desire that a Council might be held. Now
supposing that they had not desired a Council,
but that I had been the person to propose
it, in discouragement of those who had written
to me, and for the sake of our brethren who
complain that they have suffered injustice ;
even in that case the proposal would have
been reasonable and just, for it is agreeable to
ecclesiastical practice, and well pleasing to God.
But when those persons, whom you, Eusebius
and his fellows, considered to be trustworthy,
when even they wished me to call the brethren
together, it was inconsistent in the parties
invited to take offence, when they ought rather
to have shewn all readiness to be present.
These considerations shew that the display of
anger in the offended persons is petulant, and
the refusal of those who decline to meet the
Council is unbecoming, and has a suspicious
appearance. Does any one find fault, if he
sees that done by another, which he would
allow if done by himself? If, as you write,
each council has an irreversible force, and he
who has given judgment on a matter is dis-
honoured, if his sentence is examined by
others ; consider, dearly beloved, who are
they that dishonour councils ? who are setting
aside the decisions of former judges? Not
to inquire at present into everj individual
case, lest I should appear to press too heavily
on certain parties, the last instance that has
occurred, and which every one who hears it
must shudder at, will be sufficient in proof
of the others which I omit.
23. The Arians who were excommunicated
for their impiety by Alexander, the late Bishop
of Alexandria, of blessed memory, were not
only proscribed by the brethren in the several
cities, but were also anathematised by the
whole body assembled together in the great
Council of Nicasa. For theirs was no ordinary
offence, neither had they sinned against man,
but against our Lord Jesus Christ Himself,
the Son of the living God. And yet these
persons who were proscribed by the whole
world, and branded in every Church, are said
now to have been admitted to communion
again ; which I think even you ought to hear
with indignation. Who then are the parties
who dishonour a council? Are not they who
have set at nought the votes of the Three
hundred ^, and have preferred impiety to godli-
ness ? The heresy of the Arian madmen was
condemned and proscribed by the whole body
of Bishops everywhere ; but the Bishops Atha-
nasius and Marcellus have many supporters
who speak and write in their behalf. We have
received testimony in favour of Marcellus 7,
that he resisted the advocates of the Arian
doctrines in the Council of Nicaea; and in
favour of Athanasius 8, that at Tyre nothing
was brought home to him, and that in the
Mareotis, where the Reports against him are
said to have been drawn up, he was not
present. Now you know, dearly beloved, that
ex parte proceedings are of no weight, but
beaT a suspicious appearance. Nevertheless,
these things being so, we, in order to be
accurate, and neither shewing any preposses-
sion in favour of yourselves, nor of those who
wrote in behalf of the other party, invited
those who had written to us to come hither ;
that, since there were many who wrote in their
behalf, all things might be enquired into in
a council, and neither the guiltless might be
condemned, nor the person on his trial be ac-
counted innocent. We then are not the parties
who dishonour a council, but they who at once
and recklessly have received the Arians whom
all had condemned, and contrary to the decision
of the judges. The greater part of those judges
have now departed, and are with Christ ; but
some of them are still in this life of trial, and
fi The number of the Fathers at the Nicene Council is generally
considered to have been 318, the number of Abraham's servants.
Gen. xiv. 14. Anastasius(//orf«^. 3. fin.) referring to the first three
Ecumenical Councils, speaks of the faith of the 318, the 150, and
the 200. [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (i).]
7 Cf. § 32. « Cf. § 73.
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
113
are indignant at learning that certain persons
have set aside their judgment.
24. We have also been informed of the
following circumstance by those who were at
Alexandria. A certain Carpones, who had
been excommunicated by Alexander for
Arianism, was sent hither by one Gregory
wit'n certain others, also excommunicated for
the same heresy. However, I had learnt the
matter also from the Presbyter Macarius, and
the Deacons Martyrius and Hesychius. For
before the Presbyters of Athanasius arrived,
they urged me to send letters to one Pistus
at Alexandria, though at the same time the
Bishop Athanasius was there. And when the
Presbyters of the Bishop Athanasius came,
they informed me that this Pistus was an
Arian, and that he had been excommunicated 9
by the Bishop Alexander and the Council of
Niccea, and then ordained ^ by one Secundus,
whom also the great Council excommunicated
as an Arian. This statement Martyrius and
his fellows did not gainsay, nor did they deny
that Pistus had received his ordination from
Secundus. Now consider, after this who are
most justly liable to blame? I, who could not
be prevailed upon to write to the Arian Pistus ;
or those, who advised me to do dishonour to
the great Council, and to address the irreligious
as if they were religious persons ? Moreover,
when the Presbyter Macarius, who had been
sent hither by Eusebius with Martyrius and the
rest, heard of the opposition which had been
made by the Presbyters of Athanasius, while
we were expecting his appearance with Mar-
tyrius and Hesychius, he departed in the
night, in spite of a bodily ailment ; which
leads us to conjecture that his departure arose
from shame on account of the exposure which
had been made concerning Pistus. For it is
impossible that the ordination of the Arian
Secundus should be considered valid in the
Cathohc Church. This would indeed be dis-
honour to the Council, and to the Bishops
who composed it, if the decrees they framed,
as in the presence of God, with such extreme
earnestness and care, should be set aside as
worthless.
25. If, as you write 2, the decrees of all
Councils ought to be of force, according to
the precedent in the case of Novatus 3 and
Paul of Samosata, all the more ought not the
sentence of the Three hundred to be reversed,
certainly a general Council ought not to be
set at nought by a few individuals. For the
9 Cf. supr. D /OS. Ar. ' Cf. £p. Mg. 7, 19, Hist. Ar. 63.
2 Vid. al!.o Hilar, /'ragin. hi. 20.
3 Tlie instance of Novatian makes against the Eusebians, be-
cause for some time after Novatian was condemned in the West,
his cause was abandoned in the East. Tillemont, Mem. t. 7. p. 277.
VOL. IV.
Arian s are heretics as they, and the like sen-
tence has been passed both against one and
the other. And, after such bold proceedings
as these, who are they that have lighted up
the flame of discord ? for in your letter you
blame us for having done this. Is it we, who
have sympathised with the sufferings of the
brethren, and have acted in all respects
according to the Canon ; or they who con-
tentiously and contrary to the Canon have
set aside the sentence of the Three hundred,
and dishonoured the Council in every way?
For not only have the Arians been received
into communion, but Bishops also have made
a practice of removing from one place to
another ■♦. Now if you really believe that all
Bishops have the same and equal authority s,
and you do not, as you assert, account of
them according to the magnitude of their
cities ; he that is entrusted with a small city
ought to abide in the place committed to him,
and not from disdain of his trust to remove
to one that has never been put under him ;
despising that which God has given him, and
making much of the vain applause of men.
You ought then, dearly beloved, to have come
and not declined, that the matter may be
brought to a conclusion ; for this is what
reason demands.
But perhaps you were prevented by the
time fixed upon for the Council, for you
complain in your letter that the interval
before the day we appointed ^ was too short..
But this, beloved, is a mere excuse. Had
the day forestalled any when on the journey^
the interval allowed would then have been
proved to be too short. But when persons
do not wish to come, and detain even my
Presbyters up to the month of January?,
it is the mere excuse of those who have
no confidence in their cause ; otherwise, as
I said before, they would have come, not
regarding the length of the journey, not con-
sidering the shortness of the time, but trusting
to the justice and reasonableness of their
cause. But perhaps they did not come on
account of the aspect of the times ^, for again
you declare in your letter, that we ought to
have considered the present circumstances of
the East, and not to have urged you to
come. Now if as you say you did not come
because the times were such, you ought to
have considered such times beforehand, and
not to have become the authors ot schism, and
of mourning and lamentation in the Churches.
But as the matter stands, men, who have been
4 Vid. supr. {. <.
6 TTpo6e<Tixia.
8 The Persian war.
S Cyprian, de Unit. Eccl. 4.
7 A.D. 340.
Hist. Arian. § 11.
114
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
the cause of these things, shew that it is not
the times that are to blame, but the deter-
mination of those who will not meet a
Council.
26. But I wonder also how you could ever
have written that part of your letter, in which
you say, that I alone wrote, and not to all of
you, but to Eusebius and his fellows only. In
this complaint one may discover more of readi-
ness to find fault than of regard for truth. I re-
ceived the letters against Athanasius from none
other than Martyrius, Hesychius and their fel-
lows, and I necessarily wrote to them who had
written against him. Either then Eusebius and
his fellows ought not alone to have written,
apart from you all, or else you, to whom I did
not write, ought not to be offended that I
wrote to them who had written to me. If it
was right that I should address my letter to
you all, you also ought to have written with
them ; but now considering vvhat was reason-
able, I wrote to them, who had addressed
themselves to me, and had given me informa-
tion. But if you were displeased because I
alone wrote to them, it is but consistent that
you should also be angry, because they wrote
to me alone. But for this also, beloved,
there was a fair and not unreasonable cause.
Nevertheless it is necessary that I should
acquaint you that, although I wrote, yet the
sentiments I expressed were not those *of
myself alone, but of all the Bishops through-
out Italy and in these parts. I indeed was
unwilling to cause them all to write, lest the
others should be overpowered by their num-
ber. The Bishops however assembled on the
appointed day, and agreed in these opinions,
which I again write to signify to you ; so that,
dearly beloved, although I alone address you,
yet you may be assured that these are the
sentiments of all. Thus much for the excuses,
not reasonable, but unjust and suspicious,
which some of you have alleged for your
conduct.
27. Now although what has already been
said were sufficient to shew that we have not
admitted to our communion our brothers
Athanasius and Marcellus either too readily,
or unjustly, yet it is but fair briefly to set the
matter before you. Eusebius and his fellows
wrote formerly against Athanasius and his fel-
lows, as you also have written now ; but a great
number of Bishops out of Egypt and other
provinces wrote m his favour. Now in the
first place, your letters against him are incon-
sistent with one another, and the second have
no sort of agreement with the first, but in
many instances the former are answered by
the latter, and the latter are impeached by the
former. Now where there is this contradiction
in letters, no credit whatever is due to the
statements they contain. In the next place
if you require us to believe what you have
written, it is but consistent that we should not
refuse credit to those who have written in his
favour; especially, considering that you write
from a distance, while they are on the spot,
are acquainted with the man, and the events
which are occurring there, and testify in writing
to his manner of life, and positively affirm that
he has been the victim of a conspiracy through-
out.
Again, a certain Bishop Arsenius was said
at one time to have been made away with by
Athanasius, but we have learned that he is
alive, nay, that he is on terms of friendship
with him. He has positively asserted that the
Reports drawn up in the Mareotis were ex
parte ones ; for that neither the Presbyter
Macarius, the accused party, was present, nor
yet his Bishop, Athanasius himself. This we
have learnt, not only from his own mouth,
but also from the Reports which Martyrius,
Hesychius and their fellows, brought to us 9;
for we found on reading them, that the accuser
Ischyras was present there, but neither Ma-
carius, nor the Bishop Athanasius; and that
the Presbyters of Athanasius desired to attend,
but were not permitted. Now, beloved, if the
trial was to be conducted honestly, not only
the accuser, but the accused also ought to
have been present. As the accused party
Macarius attended at Tyre, as well as the
accuser Ischyras, when nothing was proved,
so not only ought the accuser to have gone
to the Mareotis, but also the accused, so
that in person he might either be convicted,
or by not being convicted might shew the
falseness of the accusation. But now, as
this was not the case, but the accuser only
went out thither, with those to whom Atha-
nasius objected, the proceedings wear a suspi-
cious appearance.
28. And he complained also that the persons
who went to the Mareotis went against his
wish, for that Theognius, Maris, Theodoms,
Ursacius, Valens, and Macedonius, who were
the persons they sent out, were of suspected
character. This he shewed not by his own
assertions merely, but from the letter of Alex-
ander who was Bishop of Thessalonica ; for he
produced a letter written by him to Dionysius^,
the Count who presided in the Council, in
which he shews most clearly that there was a
conspiracy on foot against Athanasius. He
has also brought forward a genuine document,
all in the handwriting of the accuser Ischyras
himself % in which he calls God Almighty to
9 Infr. § 83 fin.
» Infr. § 80.
§64.
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARTANS.
115
witness that no cup was broken, nor table
overthrown, but that he had been suborned by
certain persons to invent these accusations.
Moreover, when the Presbyters of the Mareotis
arrived 3, they positively affirmed that Ischyras
was not a Presbyter of the Catholic Church,
and that Macarius had not committed any such
offence as the other had laid to his charge.
The Presbyters and Deacons also who came
to us testified in the fullest manner in favour
of the Bishop Athanasius, strenuously asserting
that none of those things which were alleged
against him were true, but that he was the
victim of a conspiracy.
And all the Bishops of Egypt and Libya
wrote and protested 4 that his ordination was
lawful and strictly ecclesiastical, and that all
that you had advanced against him was false, for
that no murder had been committed, nor any
persons despatched on his account, nor any
cup broken, but that all was false. Nay, the
Bishop Athanasius also shewed from^ the ex
parte reports drawn up in the Mareotis, that
a catechumen was examined and said s, that
he was within with Ischyras, at the time when
they say Macarius the Presbyter of Athanasius
burst into the place ; and that others who were
examined said, — one, that Ischyras was in a
small cell, — and another, that he was lying
down behind the door, being sick at that very
time, when they say Macarius came thither.
Now from these representations of his, we
are naturally led to ask the question, How-
was it possible that a man who was lying
behind the door sick could get up, conduct
the service, and offer ? and how could it
be that Oblations were offered when cate-
chumens were within^? for if there were
catechumens present, it was not yet the
time for presenting the Oblations. These
representations, as I said, were made by the
Bishop Athanasius, and he showed from the
reports, what was also positively affirmed
by those who were with him, that Ischyras
has never been a presbyter at all in the
Cathohc Church, nor has ever appeared as a
presbyter in the assemblies of the Church ;
for not even when Alexander admitted those
of the Meletian schism, by the indulgence of
the great Council, was he named by Meletius
among his presbyters, as they deposed ^ ;
which is the strongest argument possible that
he was not even a presbyter of Meletius ; for
otherwise, he would certainly have been num-
bered with the rest. Besides, it was shewn
also by Athanasius from the reports, that
Ischyras had spoken falsely in other instances :
3 § 74- " Supr. § 6.
6 Bingh. Ant. X. v. 8.
5 Infr. § 83.
7 Infr. § 71.
for he set up a charge respecting the burning
of certain books, when, as they pretend, Ma-
carius burst in upon them, but was convicted
of falsehood by the witnesses he himself
brought to prove it.
29. Now when these things were thus re-
presented to us, and so many witnesses ap-
peared in his favour, and so much was ad-
vanced by him in his own justification, what
did it become us to do ? what did the rule
of the Church require of us, but that we should
not condemn him, but rather receive him and
treat him hke a Bishop, as we have done ?
Moreover, besides all this he continued here
a year and six months ^ expecting the arrival
of yourselves and of whoever chose to come,
and by his presence he put everyone to
shame, for he would not have been here,
had he not felt confident in his cause ; and
he came not of his own accord, but on
an invitation by letter from us, in the manner
in which we wrote to you 9. But still you
complain after all of our transgressing the
Canons. Now consider ; who are they that
have so acted ? we who received this man
with such ample proof of his innocence, or
they who, being at Antioch at the distance of
six and thirty posts ', nominated a stranger
to be Bishop, and sent him to Alexandria with
a military force ; a thing which was not done
even when Athanasius was banished into Gaul,
though it would have been done then, had he
been really proved guilty of the oftence. But
when he returned, of course he found his
Church unoccupied and waiting for him.
30. But now I am ignorant under what
colour these proceedings have been carried on.
In the first place, if the truth must be spoken,
it was not right, when we had written to sum-
mon a council, that any persons should anti-
cipate its decisions : and in the next place, it
was not fitting that such novel proceedings
should be adopted against the Church. For
what canon of the Church, or what Apostolical
tradition warrants this, that when a Church
was at peace, and so many Bishops were in
unanimity with Athanasius the Bishop of Alex-
andria, Gregory should be sent thither, a
stranger to the city, not having been baptized
8 Spring of 339 a.d. to autumn of 340.
9 Hist. Ar. 9.
I Or rather, halts, [kovox. They are enumerated in the Itinerary
of Antoninus, and are set down on Montfaucon's plate. The route
passes oser the Delta to Pelusium, and then coasts all the way
to Antioch. These novai were day's journeys, Constant in Hilar.
Psalm 118, Lit. 5. 2. or half a day's journey, Herman, ibid ; and
were at unequal intervals, Anibros. in Psalm ii8, Serm. 5. § 5.
Gibbon says that by the government conveyances, "it was easy to
travel an 100 miles in a day along the Roman roads." ch. ii. Mourf
or mansio properly means (he building, where soldiers or other
public officers rested at night (hence its application to monastic
houses). Such buildings included granaries, stabling, &c. vid. Con.
Theod. ed. Gothofr. 1665. t. 1. p. 47, t. 2, p. 507. Du Cange G/o.s.
t. 4. p. 426. Col. 2.
I 2
Tl6
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
there, nor known to the general body, and
desired neither by Presbyters, nor Bishops,
nor Laity — that he should be appointed at
Antioch, and sent to Alexandria, accompanied
not by presbyters, nor by deacons of the city,
nor by bishops of Egypt, but by soldiers ? for
they who came hither complained that this was
the case.
Even supposing that Athanasius was in the
position of a criminal after the Council, this
appointment ought not to have been made thus
illegally and contrary to the rule of the
Church, but the Bishops of the province ought
to have ordained one in that very Church, of
that very Priesthood, of that very Clergy ^ ;
and the Canons received from the Apostles
ought not thus to be set aside. Had this
offence been committed agamst any one of
you, would you not have exclaimed against it,
and demanded justice as for the transgression
of the Canons? Dearly beloved, we speak
honestly, as in the presence of God, and de-
clare, that this proceeding was neither pious,
nor lawful, nor ecclesiastical. Moreover, the
account which is given of the conduct of
Gregory on his entry into the city, plainly
shews the character of his appointment. In
such peaceful times, as those who came from
Alexandria declared them to have been, and
as the Bishops also represented in their letters,
the Church was set on fire ; Virgins were
stripped ; Monks were trodden under foot ;
Presbyters and many of the people were
scourged and suffered violence ; Bishops were
cast into prison ; multitudes were dragged
about from place to place ; the holy Mysteries 3,
about which they accused the Presbyter Maca-
rius, were seized upon by heathens and cast
upon the ground ; and all to constrain certain
persons to admit the appointment of Gregory.
Such conduct plainly shews who they are that
transgress the Canons. Had the appointment
been lawful, he would not have had recourse
to illegal proceedings to compel the obedience
of those who in a legal way resisted him. And
notwithstanding all this, you write that perfect
peace prevailed in Alexandria and Egypt.
Surely not, unless the work of peace is en-
tirely changed, and you call such doings as
these peace.
31. I have also thought it necessary to point
out to you this circumstance, viz. that Athana-
sius positively asserted that Macarius was kept
at Tyre under a guard of soldiers, while only
his accuser accompanied those who went to
2 Vid. Bingh. Ant. II. xi.
3 Athan. only suggests this, supr. Encyc. 3. S. Hilary says the
same of the conduct of the Arians at Toulouse ; " Clerks were
beaten with clubs; Deacons bruised with lead; nay, even 07i
Chi-ist H imself {■Cae. Saints understand my meaning) hands were
laid." Contr. Constant. 11.
the Mareotis ; and that the Presbyters who
desired to attend the inquiry were not per-
mitted to do so, while the said inquiry respecting
the cup and the Table was carried on before
the Prefect and his band, and in the presence
of Heathens and Jews. This at first seemed
incredible, but it was proved to have been so
from the Reports; which caused great astonish-
ment to us, as I suppose, dearly beloved, it
does to you also. Presbyters, who are the
ministers of the Mysteries, are not permitted
to attend, but an enquiry concerning Christ's
Blood and Christ's Body is carried on before
an external judge, in the presence of Cate-
chumens, nay, worse than that, before Hea-
thens and Jews, who are in ill repute in regard
to Christianity. Even supposing that an offence
had been committed, it should have been in-
vestigated legally in the Church and by the
Clergy, not by heathens who abhor the Word
and know not the Truth. I am persuaded
that both you and all men must perceive the
nature and magnitude of this sin. Thus much
concerning Athanasius.
32. With respect to Marcellus s, forasmuch as
you have charged him'also of impiety towards
Christ, I am anxious to inform you, that when he
was here, he positively declared that what you
had written concerning him was not true ; but
being nevertheless requested by us to give an
account of his faith, he answered in his own per-
son with the utmost boldness, so that we recog-
nised that hemaintains nothing outside the truth.
He made a confession ^ of the same godly doc-
trines concerning our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ as the Catholic Church confesses ; and
he affirmed that he had held these opinions for
a very long time, and had not recently adopted
them : as indeed our Presbyters 7, who were at
a former date present at the Council of Nicasa,
testified to his orthodoxy; for he maintained
then, as he has done now, his opposition to
Arianism (on which points it is right to admonish
you, lest any of you admit such heresy, instead
of abominating it as aHen from sound doctrine^).
Seeing then that he professed orthodox opi-
nions, and had testimony to his orthodoxy,
what, I ask again in his case, ought we to
have done, except to receive him as a Bishop,
as we did, and not reject him from our com-
munion? These things I have written, not so
much for the purpose of defending their cause,
5 Julius here acquits Marcellus; but he is considered
heretical by S. Epipbanius. loc. cil. S. Basil, Epp. 69, 125,
263, 265. S. Chyrsostom in Hebr. Haiti, ii. 2. Theodoret, Har. u.
10. vid. Pelav. de Trin. i. ig. who condemns him, and Bull far
more strongly, Def. F. N. ii. 1. § 9. Montfaucon defends him
(in a special Dissertation, Collect. Nov. torn, z.) and Tillemont.
Mem. torn. 7. p. 5T3, and Natalis Alex. Ssc. iv. Dissert. 30. [Pro-
legg. ch. ii. ii 3 (2) c]
0 Vid. Epipb. Har. 72. 2, 3. and § 47. infr.
7 Vincentius and Vito. * 1 Tim. i. to.
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
117
as in order to convince you, that we acted justly
and canonically in receiving these persons,
and that you are contentious without a cause.
But it is your duty to use your anxious en-
deavours and to labour by every means to
correct the irregularities which have been com-
mitted contrary to the Canon, and to secure
the peace of the Churches ; so that the peace
of our Lord which has been given to us 9 may
remain, and the Churches may not be divided,
nor you incur the charge of being authors of
schism. For I confess, your past conduct is
an occasion of schism rather than of peace.
22,. For not only the Bishops Athanasius and
Marcellusand their fellows came hither and com-
plained of the injustice that had been donethem,
but many other Bishops also% from Thrace, from
Ccele-Syria, from Phoenicia and Palestine, and
Presbyters, not a few, and others from Alex-
andria and from other parts, were present at
the Council here, and in addition to their other
statements, lamented before all the assembled
Bishops the violence and injustice which the
Churches had suffered, and affirmed that simi-
lar outrages to those which had been com-
mitted in Alexandria had occurred in their
own Churches, and in others also. Again there
lately came Presbyters with letters from Egypt
and Alexandria, who complained that many
Bishops and Presbyters who wished to come
to the Council were prevented ; for they said
that, since the departure of Athanasius^ even
up to this time, Bishops who are confessors 3
have been beaten with stripes, that others have
been cast into prison, and that but lately aged
men, who have been an exceedingly long
period in the Episcopate, have been given up
to be employed in the public works, and
nearly all the Clergy of the Catholic Church
with the people are the objects of plots and
persecutions. Moreover they said that certain
Bishops and other brethren had been banished
for no other reason than to compel them
against their will to communicate with Gregory
and his Arian associates. We have heard also
from others, what is confirmed by the testi-
mony of the Bishop Marcellus, that a number
of outrages, similar to those which were com-
mitted at Alexandria, have occurred also at
Ancyra in Galatia +. And in addition to all
this, those who came to the Council reported
9 Joh. xiv. 27.
> The names of few are known ; perhaps Marcellus, Asclepas,
Paul of Constantinople, Lucius of Adrianople. vid. Montf. in loc.
Tillem. Mem. torn. 7. p. 272.
2 These outrages took place immediately on the dismission
of Elpidius and Philoxenus, the Pope's legates, from Antioch. Athan.
Hht. Ar. 12.
3 e.g. Sarapammon and Potamo, both Confessors, wlio were
of the number of the Nicene Fathers, and had defended Athan.
at Tyre, were, the former banished, the latter beaten to death,
vid. infr. Hist. Ar. 12.
4 The Pseudo-Sardican Council, i.e. that of Philippopolis, retort
against some of you (for I will not mention
names) certain charges of so dreadful a nature
that I have declined setting them down in
writing : perhaps you also have heard them
from others. It was for this cause especially
that I wrote to desire you to come, that you
might be present to hear them, and that all
irre.uularities might be corrected and differences
healed. And those who were called for these
purposes ought not to have refused, but to
have come the more readily, lest by failing
to do so they should be suspected of what
was alleged against them, and be thought
unable to prove what they had written.
34. Now according to these representations,
since the Churches are thus afflicted and
treacherously assaulted, as our informants posi-
tively affirmed, who are they that have lighted
up a flame of discord s ? We, who grieve
for such a state of things and sympathize with
the sufferings of the brethren, or they who
have brought these things about ? While then
such extreme confusion existed in every Church,
which was the cause why those who visited us
came hither, I wonder how you could write
that unanimity prevailed in the Churches.
These things tend not to the edification of the
Church, but to her destruction ; and those who
rejoice in them are not sons of peace, but
of confusion : but our God is not a God of con-
fusion, but of peace ^ Wherefore, as the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knows, it
was from a regard for your good name, and
with prayers that the Churches might not fall
into confusion, but might continue as they
were regulated by the Apostles, that I thought
it necessary to Avrite thus unto you, to the end
that you might at length put to shame those
who through the effects of their mutual enmity
have brought the Churches to this condition.
For I have heard, that it is only a certain few?
who are the authors of all these things.
Now, as having bowels of mercy, take ye
care to correct, as I said before, the irregu-
larities which have been committed contrary to
the Canon, so that if any mischief has already
befallen, it may be healed through your zeal.
And write not that 1 have preferred the com-
munion of Marcellus and Athanasius to yours,
for such like complaints are no indications
of peace, but of contentiousness and hatred of
the brethren. For this cause I have written
the foregoing, that you may understand that
we acted not unjustly in admitting them to our
communion, and so may cease this strife. If
this accusation on the party of Marcellus ; Hilar. Fragtn. iii. 9. but
the character of the outrages fixes them on the Arians. vid. infi.
\ 45, note [There were doubtless outrages on both sides].
5 Vid. supr. S 25. ^ I Cor. xiv. 33.
7 Ad Ep. /Eg. 5. de Syn. 5.
Ii8
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
you had come hither, and they liad been con-
demned, and had appeared unable to produce
reasonable evidence in support of their cause,
vou would have done well in writing thus.
But seeing that, as I said before, we acted
agreeably to the Canon, and not unjustly, in
holding communion with them, I beseech you
for the sake of Christ, suffer not the members
of Christ to be torn asunder, neither trust to
prejudices, but seek rather the peace of the
Lord. It is neither holy nor just, in order
to gratify the petty feeling of a few persons, to
reject those who have never been condemned,
and thereby to grieve the Spirit ^. But if you
think that you are able to prove anything
against them, and to confute them face to face,
let those of you who please come hither : for
they also promised that they would be ready
to establish completely the truth of those things
which they have reported to us.
35. Give us notice therefore of thi.s, dearly
beloved, that we may write both to them, and
to the Bishops who will have again to assemble,
so that the accused may be condemned in the
presence of all, and confusion no longer pre-
vail in the Churches. What has already taken
place is enough : it is enough surely that
Bishops have been sentenced to banishment
in the presence of Bishops ; of which it be-
hoves me not to speak at length, lest I appear
to press too heavily on those who were present
on those occasions. But if one must speak
the truth, matters ought not to have proceeded
so far ; their petty feeHng ought not to
have been suffered to reach the present pitch.
Let us grant the " removal," as you write,
of Athanasius and Marcellus, from their own
places, yet what must one say of the case of the
other Bishops and Presbyters who, as I said
before, came hither from various parts, and
who complained that they also had been forced
away, and had suffered the like injuries ? O
beloved, the decisions of the Church are
no longer according to the Gospel, but tend
only to banishment and death 9. Suppos-
ing, as you assert, that some offence rested
upon those persons, the case ought to have
been conducted against them, not after this
manner, but according to the Canon of the
Church. Word should have been written of
it to us all % that so a just sentence might pro-
ceed from all. For the sufferers were Bishops,
and Churches of no ordinary note, but those
which the Apostles themselves had governed
in their own persons ^
8 Eph. iv 30. 9 Hist. Arian. § 67.
^ Constant itt loc. fairly insists on the word "all," as shewing
that S. Julius does not here claim the prerogative of judging by
himself 3\\ Bishops whatever, and that what follows relates merely
to the Church of Alexandria.
2 St. Peter (Greg. M. Epist. vii. Ind. 15. 40.) or St. Mark (Leo
And why was nothing said to us concerning
the Church of the Alexandrians in particular?
Are you ignorant that the custom has been for
word to be written first to us, and then for
a just decision to be passed from this place 3?
If then any such suspicion rested upon the
Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have
been sent to the Church of this place ; whereas,
after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding
on their own authority as they pleased, now
they desire to obtain our concurrence in their
decisions, though we never condemned him.
Not so have the constitutions'* of Paul, not so
have the traditions of the Fathers directed ;
this is another form of procedure, a novel prac-
tice. I beseech you, readily bear with me :
what I write is for the common good. For
what we have received from the blessed Apostle
Peters, that I signify to you ; and I should not
have written this, as deeming that these things
were manifest unto all men, had not these pro-
ceedings so disturbed us. Bishops are forced
away from their sees and driven into banish-
ment, while others from different quarters are
appointed in their place ; others are trea-
cherously assailed, so that the people have
to grieve for those who are forcibly taken
from them, while, as to those who are sent
in their room, they are obliged to give over
seeking the man whom they desire, and to
receive those they do not.
I ask of you, that such things may no
longer .be, but that you will denounce in
writing those persons who attempt them ;
so that the Churches may no longer be
afflicted thus, nor any Bishop or Presbyter
be treated with insult, nor any one be com-
pelled to act contrary to his judgment, as
they have represented to us, lest we become
a laughing-stock among the heathen, and
above all, lest we excite the wrath of God
Ep. 9.) at Alexandria. St. Paul at Ancyra in Galatia (TertuIL
contr. Niarcion. iv. 5.) vid. Coustant. in loc.
3 Socrates says somewhat ditl'erently, " Julius wrote back ....
that they acted against the Canons, because they had not called
him to a Council, the Ecclesiastical Canon commanding that the
Churches ought not to make Canons beside the will of the Bishop
of Rome." Hist. ii. 17. Sozomen in like manner, "for it was
a sacerdotal law, to declare invalid whatever was transacted beside
the will of the Bishop of the Romans." Hist. iii. 10. vid. Pope
Damasus ap. Theod. Hist. v. 10. Leon. Epist. 14. &c. In ihe
passage in the text the prerogative of the Rotnan see is limited, as
Constant observes, to the instance of Alexandria ; and we actually
find in the third century a complaint lodged against its Bishop
Dionysius with the Pope. [Prolegg. ch- iv. § 4.]
4 StaTa^€i9. St. Paul says oVTio? tV Tat? €KKATj<Ttats 5taTa(7(70jttat.
I Cor. vii. 17. TO. &€ AoiTTot SiaTaionai. Ibid. xi. 34. vid. Pearson,
Vind. Ignat. p. 298. Hence Coustant in col. Athan. would suppose
Julius to refer to i Cor. v. 4. which Athan. actually quotes, £p.
Eiicycl. § 2. supr. p. 93. Pearson, loc. cit. considers the ^taroifeis
of the Apostles, as a collection of regulation and usages, which
more or less represented, or claimed to represent, what may be
called St. Paul's rule, or St. Peter's rule, &c. Cotelier considers
the Starafeis as the same as the 5(5axa', the "doctrine" or
"teaching" of the Apostles. Praefat. in Const. Apost. So does
Beveridge, Cod. Can. Illustr. ii. 9. § 5.
5 [Petri] in Sede sua vivit potestas et excellit auctoritas Leon.
Serm. iii. 3. vid. contra Barrow on the Supremacy, p. 116. ed. 1836.
"not one Bishop, but all Bishops together through the whole
Church, do succeed St. Peter, or any other Apostle
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
119
against us. For every one of us shall give
account in the Day of judgment^ of the things
which he has done in this hfe. May we all
be possessed with the mind of God ! so that
the Churches may recover their own Bishops,
and rejoice evermore in Jesus Christ our Lord;
througli Whom to the Father be glory, for
ever and ever. Amen.
I pray for your health in the Lord, brethren
dearly beloved and greatly longed for.
^6. Thus wrote the Council of Rome by Ju-
lius, Bishop of Rome.
CHAPTER HI.
Letters of the Council of Sardlca to the Churches
of Egypt and of Alexandria, and to all
Churches.
But when, notwithstanding, Eusebius and
his fellows proceeded without shame, disturb-
ing the Churches, and plotting the ruin of
many, the most religious Emperors Constan-
lius and Constans being informed of this, com-
manded the Bishops from both the West and
East to meet together in the city of Sardica.
In the meantime Eusebius ^^ died : but a
great number assembled from all parts, and
we challenged the associates of Eusebius and
his fellows to submit to a trial. But they,
having before their eyes the things that they
had done, and perceiving that their accusers
had come up to the Council, were afraid
to do this ; but, while all besides met with
honest intentions, they again brought with
them the Counts 7 Musonianus ^ and Flesy-
chius the Castrensian 9, that, as their cus-
tom was, they might effect their own aims
by their authority. But when the Council
met without Counts, and no soldiers were
permitted to be present, they were con-
founded, and conscience-stricken, because they
could no longer obtain the judgment they
wished, but such only as reason and truth
required. We, however, frequently repeated
our challenge, and the Council of Bishops
called upon them to come forward, saying,
" You have come for the purpose of under-
going a trial ; why then do you now withdraw
yourselves ? Either you ought not to have
come, or having come, not to conceal your-
selves. Such conduct will prove your greatest
condemnation. Behold, Athanasius and his
fellows are here, whom you accused while
6 Matt. xii. 36. 6» Of Nicodemia. 7 Hist. Ar. 15.
8 Muscnian was originally of Antioch, and his name Strategius;
he had been promoted and honoured with a new name by Con-
stantine, for whom he had collected information about the Mani-
chees. Amm. i\Iarc. xv. 13, § i. In 354, he was Praetorian Prefect
of the East. (vid. de Syn. 1, note i.) Libanius praises him.
9 The Castrensians were the officers of the palace ; castra, as
cTTpaTOjreSoi', infr. § 86. being at this time used for the Imperial
Court, vid. Gothofred in Cod. Theod. vi. 30. p. 218. Du Cange
in voc.
absent ; if therefore you think that you have
any thing against them, you may convict them
face to face. But if you pretend to be un-
willing to do so, while in truth you are i nable,
you plainly shew yourselves to be calumniators,
and this is the decision the Council will
give you." When they heard this they were
self-condemned (for they were conscious of
their machinations and fabrications against us),
and were ashamed to appear, thereby proving
themselves to have been guilty of many base
calumnies.
The holy Council therefore denounced their
indecent and suspicious flight ', and admitted
us to make our defence ; and when we had
related their conduct towards us, and proved
the truth of our statements by witnesses and
other evidence, they were filled with astonish-
ment, and all acknowledged that our opponents
had good reason to be afraid to meet the
Council, lest their guilt should be proved
before their faces. They said also, that pro-
bably they had come from the East, supposing
that Athanasius and his fellows would not
appear, but that, when they saw them con-
fident in their cause, and challenging a trial,
they fled. They accordingly received us as
injured persons who had been falsely accused,
and confirmed yet more towards us their fel-
lowship and love. But they deposed Euse-
bius's associates in wickedness, who had
become even more shameless than himself,
viz., Theodorus ^ of Heraclea, Narcissus of
Neronias, Acacius 3 of Caesarea, Stephanus + of
Antioch, Ursacius and Valens of Pannonia,
Menophantus of Ephesus, and George s of
Laodic^a ; and they wrote to the Bishops in
all parts of the world, and to the diocese of
each of the injured persons, in the following
terms.
Letter of the Council of Sardica to the Church
of Alexandria.
The Holy Council, by the grace of God
assembled at Sardica,, from ^ Rome, Spain,
Gaul, Italy, Campania, Calabria, Apulia,
Africa, Sardinia, Pannonia, Moesia, Dacia,
Noricum, Siscia, Dardania, the other Dacia,
Macedonia, Thessaly, Achaia, Epirus, Thrace,
Rhodope, Palestine, Arabia, Crete, and Egypt,
to their beloved brothers, the Presbyters and
Deacons, and to all the Holy Church of
God abiding at Alexandria, sends health in
the Lord.
37. We were not ignorant, but the fact was
' To Philippopolis. 2 p. iii, note 2.
3 [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 8 (2) b.] 4 Hist. Arian. § 20.
5 [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) c. 1. and § 8 (2) c]
6 Vid. supr. p. xoo, where Isauria, Thessaly, Sicily, Britain, &c.,
added. Also Theod. H. E. ii. 6. vid. p. 120 note 9 a.
120
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
well known to us, even before we received the
letters of your piety, that the supporters of the
abominated heresy of the Arians were prac-
tising many dangerous machinations, rather
to the destruction of their own souls, than
to the injury of the Church. For this has
ever been the object of their unprincipled
craft ; this is the deadly design in which they
have been continually engaged ; viz. how they
may best expel from their places and persecute
all who are to be found anywhere of orthodox
sentiments, and maintaining the doctrine of
the Catholic Church, which was delivered to
them from the Fathers. Against some they
have laid false accusations ; others they have
driven into banishment ; others they have
destroyed by the punishments inflicted on them.
At any rate they endeavoured by violence
and tyranny to surprise the innocence of our
brother and fellow-Bishop Athanasius, and
therefore conducted their enquiry into his
case without any care, without any faith, with-
out any sort of justice. Accordingly having
no confidence in the part they had played on
that occasion, nor yet in the reports they had
circulated against him, but perceiving that they
were unable to produce any certain evidence
respecting the case, when they came to the city
of Sardica, they were unwilling to meet the
Council of all the holy Bishops. From this
it became evident that the decision of our
brother and fellow-Bishop Julius was a just
one ^ ; for after cautious deliberation and care
he had determined, that we ought not to
hesitate at all about communion with our
brother Athanasius. For he had the cred-
ible testimony of eighty Bishops, and was
also able to advance this fair argument in his
support that by the mere means of our dearly
beloved brethren his own Presbyters, and by
correspondence, he had defeated the design
of Eusebius and his fellows, who relied more
upon violence than upon a judicial enquiry.
Wherefore all the Bishops from all parts
determined upon holding communion with
Athanasius on the ground that he was inno-
cent. And let your charity also observe, that
when he came to the holy Council assembled
at Sardica, the Bishops of the East were in-
formed of the circumstance, as we said before,
both by letter, and by injunctions conveyed
by word of mouth, and were invited by us to
be present. But, being condemned by their
own conscience, they had recourse to unbe-
coming excuses, and set themselves to avoid
the enquiry. They demanded that an inno-
cent man should be rejected from our com-
munion, as a culprit, not considering how un-
7 Vid. infr. § 51, note.
becoming, or rather how impossible, such a
proceeding was. And as for the Reports which
were framed in the Mareotis by certain most
wicked and most abandoned youths ^ to whose
hands one would not commit the very lowest
office of the ministry, it is certain that they
were ex parte statements. For neither was our
brother the Bishop Athanasius present on the
occasion, nor the Presbyter Macarius who was
accused by them. And besides, their enquiry,
or rather their falsification of facts, was attended
by the most disgraceful circumstances. Some-
times heathens, sometimes Catechumens, were
examined, not that they might declare what
they knew, but that they might assert those
falsehoods which they had been taught by
others. And when you Presbyters, who were
in charge in the absence of your Bishop, desired
to be present at the enquiry, in order that you
might shew the truth, and disprove the false-
hoods, no regard was paid to you ; they would
not permit you to be present, but drove you
away with insult. ■
Now although their calumnies have been
most plainly exposed before all men by these
circumstances ; yet we found also, on read-
ing the Reports, that the most iniquitous
Ischyras, who has obtained from tliem the
empty title of Bishop as his reward for the
false accusation, had convicted himself of
calumny. He declares in the Reports that
at the very time when, according to his posi-
tive assertions, Macarius entered his cell, he
lay there sick ; whereas Eusebius and his
fellows had the boldijess to write that Ischyras
was standing up and offering when Macarius
came in.
38. The base and slanderous charge which
they next alleged against him, has become
well-known to all men. They raised a great
outcry, affirming that Athanasius had com-
mitted murder, and had made away with one Ar-
senius a Meletian Bishop, whose loss they
pretended to deplore with feigned lamentations
and fictitious tears, and demanded that the body
of a living man, as if a dead one, should be
given up to them. But their fraud was not
undetected ; one and all knew that the person
was ahve, and was numbered among the living.
And when these men, who are ready upon any
opportunity, perceived their falsehoods detected
(for Arsenius shewed himself alive, and so
proved that he had not been made away with,
and was not dead), yet they would not rest, but
proceeded to add other to their former calum-
nies9, and to slander the man by a fresh expe-
dient. Well ; our brother Athanasius, dearly
beloved, was not confounded, but again in the
8 Supr. p. 107, note 9.
9 Vid. supr. § 36. infr, § 87.
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
121
present case also with great boldness challenged
them to the proof, and we too prayed and exhort-
ed them to come to the trial, and if they were
able, to establish their charge against him. O
great arrogance ! O dreadful pride! or rather,
if one must say the truth, O evil and accusing
conscience ! for this is the view which all men
take of it.
Wherefore, beloved brethren, we admonish
and exhort you, above all things to main-
tain the right faith of the Catholic Church.
You have undergone many severe and grievous
trials ; many are the insults and injuries which
the Catholic Church has suffered, but ' he that
endureth to the end, the same shall be saved '.'
Wherefore even though they still recklessly
assail you, let your tribulation be unto you
for joy. For such afflictions are a sort of
martyrdom, and such confessions and tortures
as yours will not be without their reward, but
ye shall receive the prize from God. There-
fore strive above all things in support of the
sound faith, and of the innocence of your
Bishop and our fellow-minister Athanasius.
We also have not held our peace, nor been
negligent of what concerns your comfort, but
have deliberated and done whatsoever the
claims of charity demand. We sympathize
with our suffering brethren, and their afflictions
we consider as our own.
39. Accordingly we have written to beseech
our most religious and godly Emperors, that
their kindness would give orders for the release
of those who are still suffering from affliction
and oppression, and would command that
none of the magistrates, whose duty it is to
attend only to civil causes, give judgment
upon Clergy 2, nor henceforward in any way,
on pretence of providing for the Churches,
attempt anything against the brethren ; but
that every one may live, as he prays and
desires to do, free from persecution, from vio-
lence and fraud, and in quietness and peace
may follow the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
As for Gregory, who has the reputation of
being illegally appointed by the heretics, and
has been sent by them to your city, we wish
your unanimity to understand, that he has
been deposed by a judgment of the whole
sacred Council, although indeed he has never
at any time been considered to be a Bishop at
all. Wherefore receive gladly your Bishop
Athanasius, for to this end we have dismissed
him in peace. And we exhort all those who
either through fear, or through the intrigues of
certain persons, have held communion with
' Matt. X. 22.
2 Vid. Bingham. Antiqu. V. ii. 5. &c. Gieseler £ccl. Hist.
vol. I. p. 242. Bassi. Biblioth. Jur. t. I. p. 276. Bellarm. cie C eric.
2&.
Gregory, that now being admonished, exhorted,
and persuaded by us, they withdraw from that
his detestable communion, and straightway
unite themselves to the Catholic Church.
40. But forasmuch as we have learnt that
Aphthonius, Athanasius the son of Capito, Paul,
and Plutio, our fellow Presbyters 3, have also
suffered from the machinations of Eusebius and
his fellows, so that some of them have had
trial of exile, and others have fled on peril of
their lives, we have in consequence thought it
necessary to make this known unto you, that
you may understand that we have received and
acquitted them also, being aware that whatever
has been done by Eusebius and his fellows
against the orthodox has tended to the glory and
commendation of those who have been attacked
by them. It were fitting that your Bishop and
our brother Athanasius should make this known
to you respecting them, to his own respecting
his own ; but as for more abundant testimony
he wished the holy Council also to write to
you, we deferred not to do so, but hastened
to signify this unto you, that you may receive
them as we have done, for they also are de-
serving of praise, because through their piety
towards Christ they have been thought worthy
to endure violence at the hands of the
heretics.
What decrees have been passed by the holy
Council against those who are at the head of
the Arian heresy, and have offended against
you, and the rest of the Churches, you will
learn from the subjoined documents +. We
have sent them to you, that you may under-
stand from them that the Catholic Church will
not overlook those who offend against her.
Letter of the Council of Sardica to the Bishops
of Egypt and Libya.
The holy Council, by the grace of God
assembled at Sardica, to the Bishops of Egypt
and Libya, their fellow-ministers and dearly
beloved brethren, sends health in the Lord.
41. We were not ignorant 5, but the fact was
well known to us, even before we received the
letters of your piety, that the supporters of the
abominated heresy of the Arians were prac-
tising many dangerous machinations, rather to
the destruction of their own souls, than to the
injury of the Church. For this has ever been
the object of their craft and villainy: this is
the deadly design in which they have been
continually engaged, viz. how they may best
expel from their places and persecute all who
are to be found anywhere of orthodox senti-
ments, and maintaining the doctrine of the
3 Supr. p. 109. 4 Vid. Encycl. Letter, infr. § 46.
5 It will be observed that this Letter is nearly a transcript of
the foregoing. It was first printed in the Benedictine Edition.
122
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
Catholic Church, which was delivered to them
irom the Fathers. Against some they have laid
false accusations ; others they have driven into
banishment ; others they have destroyed by
the punishments inflicted on them. At any
rate they endeavoured by violence and tyranny
to surprise the innocence of our brother and
fellow-Bishop Athanasius, and therefore con-
ducted their enquiry into his case without any
faith, without any sort of justice. Accordingly
having no confidence in the part they had
played on that occasion, nor yet in the reports
they had circulated against him, but perceiving
that they were unable to produce any certain
evidence respecting the case, when they came
to the city of Sardica, they were unwilling to
meet the Council of all the holy Bishops.
From this it became evident that the decision
of our brother and fellow-Bishop Julius was a
just one; for after cautious deliberation and
care he had decided, that we ought not to
hesitate at all about communion with our
brother Athanasius. For he had the cred-
ible testimony of eighty Bishops, and was also
able to advance this fair argument in his
support, that by the mere means of our dearly
beloved brethren his own Presbyters, and by
correspondence, he had defeated the designs
of Eusebius and his fellows, who relied more
upon violence than upon a judicial inquiry.
Wherefore all the Bishops from all parts
determined upon holding communion with
Athanasius on the ground that he was in-
nocent. And let your charity also observe,
that when he came to the holy Council as-
sembled at Sardica, the Bishops of the East
were informed of the circumstance, as we said
before, both by letter, and by injunctions con-
veyed by word of mouth, and were invited by
us to be present. But, being condemned by
their own conscience, they had recourse to
unbecoming excuses, and began to avoid the
enquiry. I'hey demanded that an innocent
man should be rejected from our communion,
as a culprit, not considering how unbecoming,
or rather how impossible, such a proceed-
ing was. And as for the reports which were
framed in the Mareotis by certain most wicked
and abandoned youths, to whose hands one
would not commit the very lowest office of
the ministry, it is certain that they were
ex parte statements. For neither was our
brother the Bishop Athanasius present on the
occasion, nor the Presbyter Macarius, who
was accused by them. And besides, their
enquiry, or rather their falsification of facts,
was attended by the most disgraceful circum-
stances. Sometimes Heathens, sometimes
Catechumens, were examined, not that they
might declare what they knew, but that they
might assert those falsehoods which they had
been taught by others. And when you Pres-
byters, who were in charge in the absence of
your Bishop, desired to be present at the
enquiry, in order that you might shew the
truth, and disprove falsehood, no regard was
paid to you ; they would not permit you to be
present, but drove you away with insult.
Now although their calumnies have been
most plainly exposed before all men by these
circumstances ; yet we found also, on read-
ing the Reports, that the most iniquitous
Ischyras, who has obtained from them the
empty title of Bishop as his reward for the
false accusation, had convicted himself of
calumny. He declares in the Reports, that at
the very time when, according to his positive
assertions, Macarius entered his cell, he lay
there sick ; whereas Eusebius and his fellows
had the boldness to write that Ischyras was
standing offering when Macarius came in.
42. The base and slanderous charge which
they next alleged against him has become well
known unto all men. They raised a great out-
cry, affirming that Athanasius had committed
murder, and made away with one Arsenius a
Meletian Bishop, whose loss they pretended to
deplore with feigned lamentations, and fictitious
tears, and demanded that the body of a living
man, as if a dead one, should be given up to
them. But their fraud was not undetected ;
one and all knew that the person was alive,
and was numbered among the living. And
when these men, who are ready upon any
opportunity, perceived their falsehood detected
(for Arsenius shewed himself alive, and so
proved that he had not been made away with,
and was not dead), yet they would not rest,
but proceeded to add other to their former
calumnies, and to slander the man by a fresh ex-
pedient. Well: our brother Athanasius, dearly
beloved, was not confounded, but again in the
present case also with great boldness chal-
lenged them to the proof, and we too prayed
and exhorted them to come to the trial, and if
they were able, to establish their charge against
him, O great arrogance ! O dreadful pride I
or rather, if one must say the truth, O evil and
accusing conscience ! for this is the view which
all men take of it.
Wherefore, beloved brethren, we adm.onish
and exhort you, above all things, to maintain
the right faith of the Catholic Church. You
have undergone many severe and grievous
trials; many are the insults and injuries
which the Catholic Church has suffered, but
'he that endureth to the end, the same shall
be saved ^.' Wherefore, even though they
* Matt. X. 22.
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
53
shall still recklessly assail you, let your tribu-
lation be unto you for joy. For such afflictions
are a sort of martyrdom, and such confes-
sions and tortures as yours will not be with-
out their reward, but ye shall receive the prize
from God. Therefore strive above all things
in support of the sound Faith, and of the
innocence of your Bisliop and our brother
Athanasius. We also have not lield our peace,
nor been negligent of what concerns your
comfort, but have deliberated and done what-
soever the claims of charity demand. We
sympathize with our suffering brethren, and
their afflictions we consider as our own, and
have mingled our tears with yours. And you,
brethren, are not the only persons who have
suffered : many others also of our brethren in
ministry have come hither, bitterly lamenting
these things.
43. Accordingly, we have written to beseech
our most religious and godly Emperors, that
their kindness would give orders for the release
of those who are still suffering from affliction
and oppression, and would command that none
of the magistrates, whose duty it is to attend
only to civil causes, give judgment upon
Clergy, nor henceforward in any way, on pre-
tence of providing for the Churches, attempt
anything against the brethren, but that every
one may live, as he prays and desires to do,
free from persecution, from violence and fraud,
and in quietness and peace may follow the
Catholic and Apostolic Faith. As for Gregory,
who has the reputation of being illegally ap-
pointed by the heretics, and who has been sent
by them to your city, we wish your unanimity
to understand, tliat he has been deposed by
the judgment of the whole sacred Council,
although indeed he has never at any time been
considered to be a Bishop at all. Wherefore
receive gladly your Bishop Athanasius ; for to
this end we have dismissed him in peace.
And we exhort all those, who either through
fear, or through intrigues of certain persons,
have held communion witli Gregory, that being
now admonished, exhorted, and persuaded by
us, they withdraw from his detestable commu-
nion, and straightway unite themselves to the
Catholic Church.
What decrees have been passed by the
holy Council against Theodorus, Narcissus,
Stephanus, Acacius, Menophantus, Ursacius,
Valens, and George 7, who are the heads of
the Arian heresy, and have offended against
you and the rest of the Churches, you will
learn from the subjoined documents. We have
sent them to you, that your piety may assent
to our decisions, and that you may understand
^ S36
from tiiem, that the Catholic Church will not
overlook those w!io offend against her.
Encyclical Letter of the Council of Sardica.
The holy Council s, by the grace of God,
assembled at Sardica, to their dearly beloved
brethren, the Bishops and fellow- Ministers of
the Catholic Church every where, sends health
in the Lord.
44. The Arian madmen have dared repeatedly
to attack the servants of God, who maintain
the right fiiith ; they attemjjted to substitute a
spurious doctrine, and to drive out the ortho-
dox ; and at last they made so violent an
assault against the Faith, that it became known
even to the piety of our most religious Em-
perors. Accordingly, the grace of God assist-
ing them, our most religious Emperors have
themselves assembled us together out of dif-
ferent provinces and cities, and have per-
mitted this holy Council to be held in the city
of Sardica ; to the end that all dissension may
be done away, and all false doctrine being
driven from us. Christian godliness may alone
be maintained by all men. The Bishops of the
East also attended, being exhorted to do so
by the most religious Emperors, chiefly on
account of the reports they have so often cir-
culated concerning our dearly beloved brethren
and fellow-ministers Athanasius, Bishop of
Alexandria, and Marcellus, Bishop of An-
cyro-Galatia. Their calumnies have prob-
ably already reached you, and perhaps they
have attempted to disturb your ears, that
you may be induced to believe their charges
against the innocent, and that they may ob-
literate from your minds any suspicions re-
specting their own wicked heresy. But they
have not been permitted to effect this to any
great extent ; for the Lord is the Defender of
His Churches, Who endured death for their
sakes and for us all, and provided access to
heaven for us all through Himself. When
therefore Eusebius and his fellows wrote long
ago to Julius our brother and Bishop of the
Church of the Romans, against our fore-
mentioned brethren, that is to say, Atha-
nasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas 9, the Bishops
from the other parts wrote also, testifying to
the innocence of our fellow-minister Athana-
8 Vid. Theod. Hist. ii. 6. Hil. Fragm. ii.
9 Asclepas, or Asclepius of Gaza, Epiph. Hcei-. 69. 4. was one
of the Nicene Fathers, and acco'ding to Theod. Hist. i. 27. was
at the Council of Tyre, which Athan. also attended, but only by
compulsion. According to the Eusebians at Philippopolis, they
had deposed hisn [17 years previously, but the number must be
corrupt, or the statement incorrect]. They state, however, at the
same time, that he had been condemned by Athanasius and Mar-
cellus, vid. Hilar. Fragir.. iii. 13. Sozomen, Hist. iii. 8. says that
they deposed him on the charge of having overturned an altar;
and, after Athan. injt. ? 47, that he was acquitted at Sardica
on the ground that Eusebius of Ca;sarea and others had reinstated
him in his see (before 339). There is mention ot a Church built by
him in Gaza ap. Bolland. Febr. 26. Vit. L. Porphyr. n. 20. p. 648.
124
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
sius, and declaring that the representations of
Eusebius and his fellows were nothing else
but mere falsehood and calumny.
And indeed their calumnies were clearly
proved by the fact that, when they were in-
vited to a Council by our dearly beloved
fellow-minister Julius, they would not come,
and also by what was written to them by
Julius himself. For had they had confidence
in the measures and the acts in which they
were engaged against our brethren, they would
have come. And besides, they gave a still
more evident proof of their conspiracy by
their conduct in this great and holy Council.
For when they arrived at the city of Sardica,
and saw our brethren Athanasius, Marcellus,
Asclepas, and the rest, they were afraid to
come to a trial, and tliough they were re-
peatedly invited to attend, they would not
obey the summons. Although all we Bishops
met together, and above all that man of most
happy old age, Hosius, one who on account
of his age, his confession, and the many
labours he has undergone, is worthy of all
reverence ; and although we waited and
urged them to come to the trial, that in the
presence of our fellow-ministers they might
establish the truth of those charges which they
had circulated and written against them in
their absence ; yet they would not come, when
they were thus invited, as we said before, thus
giving proof of their calumnies, and almost
proclaiming to the world by this their refusal,
the plot and conspiracy in which they have
been engaged. They who are confident of the
truth of their assertions are able to make them
good against their opponents face to face.
But as they would not meet us, we think that
no one can now doubt, however they may again
have recourse to their bad practices, that they
possess no proof against our fellow-ministers,
but calumniate them in their absence, while
they avoid their presence.
45. They fled, beloved brethren, not only
on account of the calumnies they had uttered,
but because they saw that those had come
who had various charges to advance against
them. For chains and irons were brought for-
ward which they had used ; persons appeared
who had returned from banishment; there
came also our brethren, kinsmen of those who
were still detained in exile, and friends of such
as had perished through their means. And
what was the most weighty ground of accusa-
tion, Bishops were present, one ' of whom
brought forward the irons and chains which
they had caused him to wear, and others
appealed to the death which had been brought
I Perhaps Lucius of Hadrianople, says Montfaucon, referring to
Anol. de Ftig. § 3. vid. also Hist. Avian. 19.
about by their calumnies. For they had pro-
ceeded to such a pitch of madness, as even
to attempt to destroy Bishops ; and would
have destroyed them, had they not escaped
their hands. Our fellow-ministers, Theodulus
of blessed memory ^, died during his flight
from their false accusations, orders having
been given in consequence of these to put
him to death. Others also exhibited sword-
wounds ; and others complained that they had
been exposed to the pains of hunger through
their means. Nor were they ordinary per-
sons who testified to these things, but whole
Churches, in whose behalf legates appeared 3,
and told us of soldiers sword in hand, of
multitudes armed with clubs, of the threats of
judges, of the forgery of false letters. For there
were read certain false letters of Theognius
and his fellows against our fellow-ministers
Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas, written
with the design of exasperating the Emperors
against them ; and those who had then been
Deacons of Theognius proved the fact. From
these men, we heard of virgins stripped naked,
churches burnt, ministers in custody, and all
for no other end, but only for the sake of the
accursed heresy of the Arian madmen, whose
communion whoso refused was forced to suffer
these things.
When they perceived then how matters lay,
they were in a strait what course to choose.
They were ashamed to confess what they
had done, but were unable to conceal it any
longer. They therefore came to the city
of Sardica, that by their arrival they might
seem to remove suspicion from themselves
of such offences. But when they saw those
whom they had calumniated, and those who
had suffered at their hands ; when they
had before their eyes their accusers and
the proofs of their guilt, they were unwil-
ling to come forward, though invited by our
fellow-ministers Athanasius, Marcellus, and
Asclepas, who with great freedom complained
of their conduct, and urged and challenged
them to the trial, promising not only to refute
their calumnies, but also to bring proof of the
offences which they had committed against
2 Theodulus, Bishop of Trajanopolis in Thrace, who is here
spoken of as deceased, seems to have suffered this persecution from
the Eusebians upon their retreat from Sardica, vid. Athan. Hist.
Arian. § 19. We must suppose then with JVIontfaucon, that the
Council, from whom this letter proceeds, sat some considerable
time after that retreat, and that the proceedings spoken of took
place in the interval. Socrates, however, makes Theodulus survive
Constans, who died 350. H. £. ii. 26.
3 The usual proceeding of the Arians was to retort upon the
Catholics the charges which they brought against them, supr. § 33,
note 4. Accordingly, in their Encyclical from Philippopolis,_tbey
say that "a vast multitude had congregated at Sardica, of wicked
and abandoned persons, from Constantinople and Alexandria ; who
lay under charges of murder, blood, slaughter, robbery, plunder,
spoiling, and all nameless sacrileges and crimes ; who had broken
altars, burnt Churclies, ransacked private houses," &c. &c. Hil.
Fragin. iii. 19.
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
125
their Churches. But they were seized with
such terrors of conscience, that they fled ; and
in doing so they exposed their own calumnies,
and confessed by running away the offences of
which they had been guilty.
46. But althougli their malice and their
calumnies have been plainly manifested on this
as well as on former occasions, yet that they
may not devise means of practising a further
mischief in consequence of their flight, we
have considered it advisable to examine the
part they have played according to the prin-
ciples of truth ; this has been our purpose,
and we have found them calumniators by their
acts, and authors of nothing else than a plot
against our brethren in ministry. For Arse-
nius, who they said had been murdered by
Athanasius, is still alive, and is numbered
among the living ; from which we may infer that
the reports they have spread abroad on other
subjects are fabrications also. And whereas
they spread abroad a rumour concerning a
cup, which tliey said had been broken by
Macarius the Presbyter of Athanasius, those
who came from Alexandria, the Mareotis, and
the other parts, testified that nothing of the
kind had taken place. And the Egyptian
Bishops^ who wrote to Julius our fellow-
minister, positively affirmed that there had not
arisen among them even any suspicion whatever
of such a thing.
Moreover, the Reports, which they say they
have to produce against him, are, as is noto-
rious, ex parte statements ; and even in the
formation of these very Reports, Heathens
and Catechumens were examined ; one of
whom, a Catechumen, said ? in his examination
that he was present in the room when Maca-
rius broke in upon them ; and another de-
clared, that Ischyras of whom they speak so
much, lay sick in his cell at the time; from
which it appears that the Mysteries were never
celebrated at all, because Catechumens were
present, and also that Ischyras was not present,
but was lying sick on his bed. Besides, this
most worthless Ischyras, who has falsely as-
serted, as he was convicted of doing, that
Athanasius had burnt some of the sacred
books, has himself confessed that he was sick,
and was lying in his bed when Macarius came;
from which it is plain that he is a slanderer.
Nevertheless, as a reward for these his calum-
nies, they have given to this very Ischyras
the title of Bishop, although he is not
even a Presbyter. For two Presbyters, who
were once associated with Meletius, but were
afterwards received by the blessed Alexan-
der, Bishop of Alexandria, and are now with
p. lOI.
3 Cf. § 28.
Athanasius, appeared before the Council, and
testified that he was not even a Presbyter of
Meletius, and that Meletius never had either
Church or Minister in the Mareotis. And yet
this man, who has never been even a Pres-
byter, they have now brought forward as a
Bishop, that by this name they may have the
means of overpowering those who are within
hearing of his calumnies.
47. The book of our fellow-minister Mar-
cellus was also read, by which the fraud of
Eusebius and his fellows was plainly dis-
covered. For what Marcellus had advanced
by way of enquiry 4, they falsely represented
as his professed opinion ; but when the sub-
sequent parts of the book were read, and
the parts preceding the queries themselves, his
faith was found to be correct. He had never
pretended, as they positively affirmed 5, that
the Word of God had His beginning from
holy Mary, nor that His kingdom had an
end ; on the contrary he had written that His
kingdom was both without beginning and
without end. Our fellow-minister Asclepas also
produced Reports which had been drawn up at
Antioch in the presence of his accusers and
Eusebius of Csesarea, and proved that he was
innocent by the declarations of the Bishops
who judged his cause^. They had good reason
therefore, dearly beloved brethren, for not
hearkening to our frequent summons, and for
deserting the Council. They were driven to this
by their own consciences ; but their flight only
confirmed the proof of their own calumnies,
and caused those things to be believed against
them, which their accusers, who were present,
were asserting and arguing. But besides all
these things, they had not only received those
who were formerly degraded and ejected on
account of the heresy of Arius, but had even
promoted them to a higher station, advancing
Deacons to the Presbytery, and of Presbyters
making Bishops, for no other end, but that
they might disseminate and spread abroad
impiety, and corrupt the orthodox faith.
48. Their leaders are now, after Eusebius and
his fellows, Theodorus of Heraclea, Narcissus
of Neronias in Cilicia, Stephanus of Antioch,
George of Laodicea, Acacius of Csesarea in
Palestine, Menophantus of Ephesus in Asia,
Ursacius of Singidunum in Moesia, and Valens
of Mursa in Pannonia?, These men would
not permit those who came with them from
the East to meet the holy Council, nor even to
approach the Church of God ; but as they
were coming to Sardica, they held Councils in
4 Cf. de Deer. § 25, note S De Syn. § 25, note.
6 § 44, note g. . . ,
7 Vid. supr. §§ 13, note, and 36. About Stephanus, vid. infr.
Hist. Avian. § 20.
126
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
various places by themselves, and made an en-
gagement under threats, that when they came
to Sardica, they would not so much as appear
at the trial, nor attend the assembling of the
holy Council, but simply coming and making
known their arrival as a matter of form, would
speedily take to flight. This we have been
able to ascertain from our fellow-ministers,
Macarius of Palestine and Asterius of Arabia^,
who after coming in their company, separated
themselves from their unbelief. These came
to the holy Council, and complained of the
violence they had suffered, and said that no
right act was being done by them ; adding
that there were many among them who adhered
to orthodoxy, but were prevented by those
men from coming hither, by means of the
threats and promises which they held out to
those who wished to separate from them. On
this account it was that they were so anxious
that all should abide in one dwelling, and
would not suffer them to be by themselves
even for the shortest space of time.
49. Since then it became us not to hold our
peace, nor to pass over unnoticed their calum-
nies, imprisonments, murders, wounds, con-
spiracies by means of false letters, outrages,
stripping of the virgins, banishments, destruc-
tion of the Churches, burnings, translations
from small cities to larger dioceses, and above
all, the rising of the ill-named Arian heresy by
their means against the orthodox faith ; we
have therefore pronounced our dearly beloved
brethren and fellow-ministers Athanasius, Mar-
cellus, and Asclepas, and those who minister
to the Lord with them, to be innocent and
clear of offence, and have written to the diocese
of each, that the people of each Church may
know the innocence of their own Bishop, and
may esteem him as their Bishop and expect
his coming.
And as for those who like wolves 9 have
invaded their Churches, Gregory at Alexandria,
Basil at Ancyra, and Quintianus at Gaza, let
them neither give them the title of Bishop, nor
hold any communion at all with them, nor
receive letters '° from them, nor write to them.
And for Theodorus, Narcissus, Acacius, Ste-
phanus, Ursacius, Valens, Menophantus, and
George, although the last from fear did not
come from the East, yet because he was de-
posed by the blessed Alexander, and because
both he and the others were connected with
the Arian madness, as well as on account
of the charges which lie against them, the holy
Council has unanimously deposed them from
8 [For Macarius, reid Alius.] These two Bishops were soon
after the Council banished by Eus;bian influence into upper Libya,
where they suffered extreme ill usage vid. H ist. Arian. § i8.
9 Vid. Acts XX. 29. '-" p. 95, note 4.
the Episcopate, and we have decided that they
not only are not Bishops, but that they are
unworthy of holding communion with the
faithful.
For they who separate the Son and alienate
the Word from the Father, ought themselves
to be separated from the Catholic Church and
to be alien from the Christian name. Let
them therefore be anatliema to you, because
they have ' corrupted the word of truth '.' It
is an Apostolic injunction 2, 'If any man preach
any other Gospel unto you than that ye have
received, let him be accursed.' Charge your peo-
ple that no one hold communion with them,
for there is no communion of light with dark-
ness ; put away from you all these, for there is
no concord of Christ in Belial 3. And take
heed, dearly beloved, that ye neither write
to them, nor receive letters from them ; but
desire rather, brethren and fellow-ministers, as
being present in spirit 3^ with our Council, to
assent to our judgments by your subscriptions 4,
to the end that concord may be preserved by
all our fellow-ministers everywhere. May Di-
vine Providence protect and keep you, dearly
beloved brethren, in sanctification and joy.
I, Hosius, Bishop, have subscribed this, and
all the rest likewise.
This is the letter which the Council of
Sardica sent to those who were unable to
attend, and they on the other hand gave their
judgment in accordance ; and the following
are the names both of those Bishops who
subscribed in the Council, and of the others
also.
50. Hosius of Spain s, Julius of Rome by
his Presbyters Archidamus and Philoxenus,
Protogenes of Sardica, Gaudentius, Mace-
donius, Severus, Praetextatus, Ursicius, Lu-
cillus, Eugenius, Vitalius, Calepodius, Floren-
tius, Bassus, Vincentius, Stercorius, Palla-
dius, Domitianus, Chalbis, Gerontius, Pro-
tasius, Eulogus, Porphyrius, Dioscorus, Zo-
simus, Januarius, Zosimus, Alexander, Eu-
tychius, Socrates, Diodorus, Martyrius, Eu-
therius, Eucarpus, Athenodorus, Ireuccus,
I 2 Cor. ii. 17. ^ Cj.il. i. 9.
3 2 Cor. vi. 14, 15. S* 1 Cor. v. 3.
4 In like maimer the Council of Chalcedon was confirmed by
as many as 470 subscriptions, according to Ephreni (J'hot. Bibl.
p. 801) by 1600 according to Eulogius (ibid. p. 877), i.e. of Bishops,
Archimandrites, &c.
5 Hosius i-s called by Athan. the father and the president of the
Council. Hist. Arian. 15. 16. Roman coiUroversialisls here explain
why Hosius does not sign himself as the Pope's legate, De Marc.
Concord, v. 4. Alber. Diise^-i. ix. and Protestants why Ills legates
rank before all the other Uishcp^, even before Protogenes. IJisliop of
the place. Basnage, Ann. 347. 5. Feljronius considers that Hosius
signed here and at Nicaea, as a sort of representative of the civil,
and the Legates of eccle^iaslical supremacy. <ie Stat. Eccl. vi. 4.
And so Thomassin, " Imperator velut exterior Episcopus : praefuit
autemsummus Pontifex, ut Episcopus interior." Dissert, in Cone.
X. 14. The popes never attended in person t!ie Eastern Councils.
St. Leo excuses himself on the plea of its being against usage.
Epp. 37. and 93. [Silvesier's absence from Nicsea was due solely
to extreme old age. But Sardica was a U'esiein co.incil.]
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
127
Julianus, Alypius, Jonas, Aetius, Resti-
tutus, Marcellinus, Aprianus, Vitalius, Va-
lens, Hermogenes, Castus, Domitianus, For-
tunatius, Marcus, Annianus, Heliodorus,
Musjeiis, Asterius, Paregorius, Piutarchus,
Hymenosus, Athanasius, Lucius, Amantius,
Arius, Asclepius, Dionysius, Maximus, Try-
phon, Alexander, Antigonus, yElianus, Petrus,
Symphorus, Musonius, Eutychus, Philologius,
Spudasius, Zosimus, Patricias, Adolius, Sa-
pricius^.
From Gaul the following ; Maximianus ^^
Verissimus'^'', Victurus, Valentinus^ Desiderius,
Eulogius, Sarbatius, Dyscolius % Superior, Mer-
curius, Declopetus, Eusebius, Severinus 3, Saty-
rus, Martinus, Paulus, Optatianus, Nicasius,
Victor 4, Sempronius, Valerinus, Pacatus, Jes-
ses, Ariston, Simplicius, Metianus, Amantus s,
Amillianus, Justinianus, Victorinus ^, Sator-
nilus, Abundantius, Donatianus, Maximus.
From Africa ; Nessus, Gratus 7, Megasius,
Coldaeus, Rogatianus, Consortius, Rufinus,
Manninus, Cessilianus, Herennianus, Marianus,
Valerius, Dynamius, Mizonius, Justus, Celes-
tinus, Cyprianus, Victor, Honoratus, Marinus,
Pantagathus, Felix, Baudius, Liber, Capito,
Minervalis, Cosmus, Victor, Hesperio, Felix,
Severianus, Optantius, Hesperus, Fidentius,
Salustius, Paschasius.
From Egypt ; Liburnius, Amantius, Felix,
Ischyrammon, Romulus, Tiberinus, Consortius,
Heraclides, Fortunatius, Dioscorus, Fortuna-
tianus, Bastamon, Datyllus, Andreas, Serenus,
Arius, Theodorus, Evagoras, Helias, Timo-
theus, Orion, Andronicus, Paphnutius, Her-
mias, Arabion, Psenosiris, Apollonius, Muis,
Sarapampon ^, Philo, Philippus, Apollonius,
Paphnutius, Paulus, Dioscorus, Nilammon,
Serenus, Aquila, Aotas, Harpocration, Isac,
Theodorus, Apollos, Ammonianus, Nilus, Her-
aclius, Arion, Athas, Arsenius, Agathammon,
Theon, Apollonius, Helias, Paninuthius, An-
dragathius, Nemesion, Sarapion, Ammonius,
Ammonius, Xenon, Gerontius, Quintus, Leon-
ides, Sempronianus, Philo, Heraclides, Hier-
acys, Rufus, Pasophius, Macedonius, ApoUo-
dorus, Flavianus, Psaes, Syrus, Apphus, Sara-
pion, Esaias, Paphnutius, Tunotheus, Elurion,
Gaius, Musaeus, Pistus, Heraclammon, Heron,
Hehas, Anagamphus, Apollonius, Gaius, Phi-
lotas, Paulus, Tithoes, Eudaemon, Julius.
Those on the road 9 of Italy are Proba-
6 [The above names, with a few exceptions, comprise those
present at the Council. See additional Note at the end of
this Apology, where a list is given in alphabetical order of all
bishops present, with their Sees.J 6" Of Treveri.
6'' Of Lyons. i Of Aries. ^ Of Rheims.
3 Of Sens. 4 Of Worms. 5 Of Strassburg.
6 Of Paris. 7 Of Carthage. 8 {5 33^ note 3a, and 78.
9 01 ev T(Z KavakCtu lij^ 'IraKiai. " Canalis est, non via regia aut
militaris, verum via tranversa, qu^ in regiam seu basilicam influit,
quasi aquae canalis in alveum." Gothofred. in Cod. Theod. vi.
de Cjtrtosis, p. iq6. who illustrates the word at length. Du Cange
tius. Viator, P'acundinus, Joseph, Numedius,
Sperantius, Severus, Heraclianus, Faustinus,
Antoninus, Heraclius, Vitalius, Felix, Crispi-
nus, Paulianus.
From Cyprus ; Auxibius, Photius, Gerasius,
Aphrodisius, Irenicus, Nunechius, Athanasius,
Macedonius, Triphyllius, Spyridon, Norbanus,
Sosicrates.
From Palestine ; Maximus, Aetius, Arius,
Theodosius, Germanus, Silvanus, Paulus, Claud-
ius, Patricius, Elpidius, Germanus, Eusebius,
Zenobius, Paulus, Petrus.
These are the names of those who subscribed
to the acts of the Council ; but there are very
many beside, out of Asia, Phrygia, and Isauria 9%
who wrote in my behalf before this Council
was held, and whose names, nearly sixty-three
in number, may be found in their own letters.
They amount altogether to three hundred and
forty-four '°
CHAPTER IV.
Imperial and Ecclesiastical Acts in consequence
of the Decision of the Coimcil of Sardica.
51. When the most religious Emperor Con-
stantius heard of these things, he sent for me,
having written privately to his brother Con-
stans of blessed memory, and to me three
several times in the following terms.
Constantius Victor Augustus to Athanasius ^
Our benignant clemency will not suffer you
to be any longer tempest-tossed by the wild
waves of the sea ; for our unwearied piety has
not lost sight of you, while you have been
bereft of your native home, deprived of your
goods, and have been wandering in savage
wildernesses. And although I have for a long-
time deferred expressing by letter the purpose
of my mind concerning you, principally be-
cause I expected that you would appear before
us of your own accord, and would seek a relief
of your sufferings ; yet forasmuch as fear, it
may be, has prevented you from fulfilling your
intentions, we have therefore addressed to your
fortitude letters full of our bounty, to the end
that you may use all speed and without fear
present yourself in our presence, thereby to
obtain the enjoyment of your wishes, and that,
having experience of our kindness, you may be
on the contrary, in voc. explains it of "the high road." Tillemont
professes himself unable to give a satisfactory sense to it. vol. viii.
p. 685. [The word occurs in the Xlth. Sardican canon, where the
Greek version (Can. XX. in Bruns) glosses it Ko-voXiia ^rot
Tropo<Sa).] 9J Cf. § 36.
10 Athan. says, supr. § i. that the Letter of the Council was
signed in all by more than 300. It will be observed, that
Athan.'s numbers in the text do not accurately agree with each
other. The subscriptions enumerated are 2S4, to which 63 being
added, made a total of 347, not 344. [The enumeration of Ath.
includes many who signed long afterwards. Those 'from Palestine
are simply the signatories of the synodal letter of 346, below § 57.
The number, 170, mentioned by Ath. Hist. Ar. 15 gives an
orthodox majority of 20. See additional Note at end of |1
Apology, and Gwatkin, Studies, p. 121, noie.l
I Written a.d. 345.
128
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
restored again to your own. For this pur-
pose I have besought my lord and brother
Constans Victor Augustus, in your behalf, that
he would give you permission to come, in
order that you may be restored to your country
with the consent of us both, receiving this as
a pledge of our favour.
Tlie Second Letter.
Although we made it very plain to you in a
former letter that you may without hesitation
come to our Court, because we greatly wished
to send you home, yet, we have further sent
this present letter to your fortitude to exhort
you without any distrust or apprehension, to
place yourself in the public conveyances ^, and
to hasten to us, that you may enjoy the fulfil-
ment of your wishes.
The Third Letter.
Our pleasure was, while we abode at Edessa,
and your Presbyters were there, that, on one
of them being sent to you, you should make
haste to come to our Court, in order that you
might see our face, and straightway proceed to
Alexandria. But as a very long period has
elapsed since you received letters from us,
and you have not yet come, we therefore
hasten to remind you again, that you may
endeavour even now to present yourself before
us with speed, and so may be restored to your
country, and obtain the accomplishment of
your prayers. And for your fuller information
we have sent Achitas the Deacon, from whom
you will be able to learn the purpose of our
soul, that you may now secure the objects of
your prayers.
Such was the tenor of the Emperor's letters ;
on receiving which I went up to Rome to bid
farewell to the Church and the Bishop : for I
was at Aquileia 3 when the above was written.
The Church was filled with all joy, and the
Bishop Julius rejoiced with me in my return
and wrote to the Church 4 ; and as we passed
along, the Bishops of every place sent us
on our way ia peace. The letter of Juhus
was as follows.
* Gothof. in Cod. Theod. viii. 5. p. 507. 3 Apol. Const. 3, 15.
4 " They acquainted Julius the Bishop of Rome with their case ;
and he, according to the prerogative (Trpovri/y.ia) of the Church in
Rome, fortified them with letters in which he spoke his mind, and
sent them back to the East, restoring each to his own place, and
remarking on those who had violently deposed them. They then
set out from Rome, and on the strength (tlappoOireg) of the letters
of Bishop Julius, take possession of their Churches." Socr. ii. i;.
It must be observed, that in the foregoing sentences Socrates has
spoken of "(zV«/frzaj? I Rome." Sozomen says, " Whereas the care
of all (KTfiiit.ovio.%) pertained to him on account of the dignity of his
see, he restored each to his own Church." iii. 8. " I answer," says
Barrow, " the Pope did not restore them judicially, but declara-
tively, that is, declaring his approbation of their right and inno-
cence, did admit them to communion. . . . Besides, the Pope's
proceeding was taxed, and protested against, as irregular; . . . .
and, lastly, the restitution of Athanasius and the other Bishops
had no complete effect, till it was confirmed by the synod of Sardica,
backed by the imperial authority." Svprein. p. 360. ed. 1836.
52. Julius to the Presbyters, Deacons, and
people residing at Alexandria s.
I congratulate you, beloved brethren, that
you now behold the fruit of your faith before
your eyes ; for any one may see that such
indeed is the case with respect to my brother
and fellow-Bishop Athanasius, whom for the
innocency of his life, and by reason of your
prayers, God is restoring to you again.
Wherefore it is easy to perceive, that you
have continually offered up to God pure
prayers and full of love. Being mindful of
the heavenly promises, and of the conversa-
tion that leads to them, which you have learnt
from the teaching of my brother aforesaid,
you knew certainly and understood by the
right faith that is in you, that he, whom you
always had as present in your most pious
minds, would not be separated from you for
ever. Wherefore there is no need that I should
use many words in writing to you ; for your
faith has already anticipated whatever T could
say to you, and has by the grace of God pro-
cured the accomplishment of the common
prayers of you all. Therefore, I repeat again,
I congratulate you, because you have preserved
your souls unconquered in the faith ; and I
also congratulate no less my brother Athana-
sius, in that, though he is enduring many
afflictions, he has at no time been forgetful of
your love and earnest desires towards him.
For although for a season he seemed to be
withdrawn from you in body, yet he has con-
tinued to live as always present with you in
spirit ^.
53. Wherefore he returns to you now more
illustrious than when he went away from you.
Fire tries and purifies the precious materials,
gold and silver : but how can one describe the
worth of such a man, who, having passed
victorious through the perils of so many tribu-
lations, is now restored to you, being pro-
nounced innocent not by our voice only, but
by the voice of the whole Council ^ ? Re-
ceive therefore, beloved brethren, with all
godly honour and rejoicing, your Bishop
Athanasius, together with those who have
been partners with him in so many labours.
And rejoice that you now obtain the ful-
filment of your prayers, after that in your
salutary letter you have given meat and drink
to your Pastor, who, so to speak, longed and
thirsted after your godliness. For while he
sojourned in a foreign land, you were his con-
solation ; and you refreshed him during his
persecutions by your most faithful minds and
spirits. And it delights me now to conceive
5 Written early in 346 a.d.
6 Athan. here omits a paragraph in his own praise, vid. Socr.
ii. 23. 7 § 35, note 3.
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
129
and figure to my mind the joy of every one of
you at his return, and the pious greetings of
the concourse, and the glorious festivity of
those that run to meet him. What a day will
that be to you, when my brother comes back
again, and your former sufferings terminate,
and his much-prized and desired return in-
spires you all with an exhilaration of perfect
joy ! The like joy it is ours to feel in a very
great degree, since it has been granted us by
God, to be able to make the acquaintance of
so eminent a man. It is fitting therefore that
I should conclude my letter with a prayer.
May Almighty God, and His Son our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, afford you continual
grace, giving you a reward for the admirable
faith which you displayed in your noble con-
fession in behalf of your Bishop, that He may
impart unto you and unto them that are with
you, both here and hereafter, those better
things, which ' the eye hath not seen, nor ear
heard, neither hath entered into the heart of
man, the things which God hath prepared for
them that love Him 2,' through our Lord Jesus
Christ, through Whom to Almighty God be
glory for ever and ever. Amen. I pray, dearly
beloved brethren, for your health and strength
in the Lord.
54. The Emperor, when I came to him 5
with these letters, received me kindly, and
sent me forth to my country and Church,
addressing the following to the Bishops, Pres-
byters, and People.
Con Stan tins, Victor, Maximus, Augustus, to
the Bishops and Presbyters of the Catholic
Church.
The most reverend Athanasius has not been
deserted by the grace of God, but although for
a brief season he was subjected to trial to
which human nature is liable, he has obtained
from the all-surveying Providence such an
answer to his prayers as was meet, and is
restored by the will of the Most High, and by
our sentence, at once to his country and to
the Church, over which by divine permission
he presided. Wherefore, in accordance with
this, it is fitting that it should be provided by
our clemency, that all the decrees which have
heretofore been passed against those who held
communion with him, be now consigned to
oblivion, and that all suspicions respecting
them be henceforward set at rest, and that
immunity, such as the Clergy who are asso-
ciated with him formerly enjoyed, be duly
confirmed to them. Moreover to our other
acts of favour towards him we have thought
good to add the following, that all persons of
8 I Cor. ii. 9.
9 [At Antioch September^ 346. See Prolegg. ch. ii. ? 6 (3).]
VOL. IV.
the sacred cataloc^ue^ should understand, that
an assurance of safety is given to all who
adhere to him, whether Bishops, or other
Clergy. And union with him will be a suffi-
cient guarantee, in the case of any person, of
an upright intention. For whoever, acting ac-
cording to a better judgment and part, shall
choose to hold communion with him, we order,
in imitation of that Providence which has
already gone before, that all such should have
the advantage of the grace which by the will
of the Most High is now offered to them from
us. May God preserve you.
The Second Letter.
Constantius, Victor, Maximus, Augustus, to
the people of the Catholic Church at Alex-
andria.
55. Having in view your welfare in all
respects, and knowing that you have for a
long time been deprived of episcopal super-
intendence, we have thought good to send
back to you your Bishop Athanasius, a man
known to all men for the uprightness that is
in him, and for the good disposition of his
personal character. Receive him, as you
are wont to receive every one, in a suitable
manner, and, using his advocacy as your
succour in your prayers to God, endeavour
to preserve continually that unanimity and
peace according to the order of the Church
which is at the same time becoming in you,
and most advantageous for us. For it is not
becoming that any dissension or faction should
be raised among you, contrary to the pros-
perity of our times. We desire that this
offence may be altogether removed from you,
and we exhort you to continue stedfastly in
your accustomed prayers, and to make him, as
we said before, your advocate and helper
towards God. So that, when this your de-
termination, beloved, has influenced the
prayers of all men, even those heathen who
are still addicted to the false worship of
idols may eagerly desire to come to the
knowledge of our sacred religion. Again
therefore we exhort you to continue in these
things, and gladly to receive your Bishop,
who is sent back to you by the decree of
the Most High, and by our decision, and
determine to greet him cordially with all youi
soul and with all your mind. For this is what
is both becoming in you, and agreeable to our
clemency. In order that all occasions of
disturbance and sedition may be taken away
from those who are maliciously disposed, we
have by letter commanded the magistrates who
are among you to subject to the vengeance of
' Vid. Bingh. Antigu. I v. xa
I30
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS
the law all whom they find to be factious.
Wherefore taking into consideration both these
things, our decision in accordance with the will
of the Most High, and our regard for you and
for concord among you, and the punishment
that awaits the disorderly, observe such things
as are proper and suitable to the order of our
sacred religion, and receiving the afore-men-
tioned Bishop with all reverence and honour,
take care to offer up with him your prayers to
God, the Father of all, in behalf of yourselves,
and for the well-being of your whole lives.
56. Having written these letters, he also
commanded that the decrees, which he had
formerly sent out against me in consequence
of the calumnies of Eusebius and his fellows,
should be cancelled and struck out from the
Orders of the Duke and the Prefect of Egypt ;
and Eusebius the Decurion ^ was sent to with-
draw them from the Order-books. His letter
on this occasion was as follows.
Constantius, Victor, Augustus, to Nestorius 3.
{And in the same terms, to the Governors of
Augustamnica, the Thebais, and Libya.)
Whatever Orders are found to have been
passed heretofore, tending to the injury and
dishonour of those who hold communion with
the Bishop Athanasius, we wish them to be
now erased. For we desire that whatever
immunities his Clergy possessed before, they
should again possess the same. And we wish
this our Order to be observed, that when the
Bishop Athanasius is restored to his Church,
those who hold communion with him may
enjoy the immunities which they have always
enjoyed, and which the rest of the Clergy
enjoy ; so that they may have the satisfaction
of being on an equal footing with others.
57. Being thus set forward on my journey,
as I passed through Syria, I met with the
Bishops of Palestine, who when they had
called a Council 4 at Jerusalem, received me
cordially, and themselves also sent me on my
way in peace, and addressed the following
letter to the Church and the Bishops.
The Holy Council, assembled at Jerusalem,
to the fellow-ministers in Egypt and Libya,
and to the Presbyters, Deacons, and People
at Alexandria, brethren beloved and greatly
longed for, sends health in the Lord.
We cannot give worthy thanks to the God
of all, dearly beloved, for the wonderful things
which He has done at all times, and es-
pecially at this time for your Church, in re-
storing to you your pastor and lord, and our
fellow-minister Athanasius. For who ever
2 Member of the Curia or Council. 3 Prefect of Egypt,
vid. Vita Ant. 86, Fest. Ind. xvii. — xxiv. 4 Hist. Arian. 25.
hoped that his eyes would see what you are
now actually obtaining? Of a truth, your
prayers have been heard by the God of all.
Who cares for His Church, and has looked
upon your tears and groans, and has therefore
heard your petitions. For ye were as sheep
scattered and fainting, not having a shepherd s.
Wherefore the true Shepherd, Who careth for
His own sheep, has visited you from heaven,
and has restored to you hira whom you desire.
Behold, we also, being ready to do all things
for the peace of the Church, and being prompt-
ed by the same affection as yourselves, have
saluted him before you ; and communicating
with you through him, we send you these
greetings, and our offering of thanksgiving,
that you may know that we also are united in
the bond of love that joins you to him. You
are bound to pray also for the piety of our
most God-beloved Emperors, who, when they
knew your earnest longings after him, and his
innocency, determined to restore him to you
with all honour. Wherefore receive him with
uplifted hands, and take good heed that you
offer up due thanksgiving on his behalf to God
Who has bestowed these blessings upon you ;
so that you may continually rejoice with God
and glorify our Lord, in Christ Jesus our Lord,
through Whom to the Father be glory for ever.
Amen.
I have set down here the names of those
who subscribed this letter, although I have
mentioned them before ^. They are these ;
Maximus, Aetius, Arius, Theodorus?, Ger-
manus, Silvanus, Paulus, Patricius, Elpidius,
Germ anus, Eusebius, Zenobius, Paulus, Macri-
nus ^, Petrus, Claudius.
58. When Ursacius and Valens saw all
this, they forthwith condemned themselves
for what they had done, and going up to
Rome, confessed their crime, declared them-
selves penitent, and sought forgiveness 9, ad-
dressing the following letters to JuKus, Bishop
of ancient Rome, and to ourselves. Copies
of them were sent to me from Paulinus, Bishop
of Treveri '°.
A Translation from the Latin of a Letter * to
Julius, concerning the recantation of Ursacius
and Valens'^.
Ursacius and Valens to the most blessed
lord, pope Julius.
5 Matt. ix. 36. ^ 6 § 50. 7 Theodosius, supr. 8 Not supr.
9 Cf. § 20, note' 4. »o Tpipeptov, Paul infr. Hist. Ar. 26.
» Hist. Arian. 25. 26.
» [Gibbon, ch. xxi. note 108, doubts the fact of this recantation
on the ground of the dissimilar tone of the two letters that follow.
Newman explains that they treat Julius as 'a superior,' Atha-
nasius as 'an equal;' but surely he was something more than
an equal. Fear of Constans, and the desire to secure themselves
from attack, would make it important for them at any price
to obtain the favour of the ftrst bishop of the West. In order to
do this they had to make their peace with Athanasius ; but in
doing so, they went no further than they could help.]
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
131
Whereas it is well known that we have
heretofore in letters laid many grievous charges
against the Bishop Athanasius, and whereas,
when we were corrected by the letters of your
Goodness, we were unable to render an ac-
count of the statement we had made ; we do
now confess before your Goodness, and in the
presence of all the Presbyters our brethren,
that all the reports which have heretofore
come to your hearing respecting the case of
the aforesaid Athanasius, are falsehoods and
fabrications, and are utterly inconsistent with
his character. Wherefore we earnestly desire
communion with the aforesaid Athanasius,
especially since your Piety, with your charac-
teristic generosity, has vouchsafed to pardon
our error. But we also declare, that if at any
time the Eastern Bishops, or even Athanasius
himself, ungenerously should wish to bring
us to judgment for this matter, we will
not depart contrary to your judgment. And
as for tlie heretic Arius and his supporters,
who say that once the Son was not, and that
the Son was made of that which was not, and
who deny that Christ is God and the Son of
God before the worlds, we anathematize them
both now and for evermore, as also we have
set forth in our former declaration at Milan 3.
We have written this with our own hands, and
we profess again, that we have renounced for
ever, as we said before, the Arian heresy and
its authors.
I Ursacius subscribed this my confession in
person ; and likewise I Valens.
Ursacius and Valens, Bishops, to their lord
and brother, the Bishop Athanasius.
Having an opportunity of sending by our
brother and fellow Presbyter Musseus, who is
coming to your Charity, we salute you affec-
tionately, beloved brother, through him, from
Aquileia, and pray you, being as we trust
in health, to read our letter. You will also
give us confidence, if you will return to us an
answer in writing. For know that we are at
peace with you, and in communion with the
Churcli, of which the salutation prefixed to
this letter is a proof. May Divine Providence
preserve you, my Lord, our beloved brother !
Such were their letters, and such the sentence
and the judgment of the Bishops in my be-
half. But in order to prove that they did not
act thus to ingratiate themselves, or under
compulsion in any quarter, I desire, with
your permission, to recount the whole matter
from the beginning, so that you may perceive
that the bishops wrote as they did with upright
and just intentions, and that Ursacius and
3 A.D. 347.
Valens, tliough they were slow to do so, at last
confessed the truth.
PART II.
CHAPTER V.
Documents connected with the charges of the
Meletians against S. Athanasius.
59. Peter was Bishop among us before the
persecution, and during the course of it he
suffered martyrdom. When Meletius, who
held the title of bishop in Egypt, was con-
victed of many crimes, and among the rest
of offering sacrifice to idols, Peter deposed
him in a general council of the bishops.
Whereupon Meletius did not appeal to an-
other council, or attempt to justify himself
before those who should come after, but made
a schism, so that they who espoused his cause
are even yet called Meletians instead of
Christians ^ He began immediately to revile
the bishops, and made false accusations, first
against Peter himself, and against his successor
Achillas, and after Achillas, against Alex-
ander ^ And he thus practised craftily, fol-
lowing the example of Absalom, to the end
that, as he was disgraced by his deposition,
he might by his calumnies mislead the simple.
While Meletius was thus employed, the Arian
heresy also had arisen. But in the Council
of Nicgea, while the heresy was anathematized,
and the Arians were cast out, the Meletians
on whatever grounds 3 (for it is not necessary
now to mention the reason) were received.
Five months however had not yet passed ♦
when, the blessed Alexander having died,
the Meletians, who ought to have remained
quiet, and to have been grateful that they
were received on any terms, like dogs unable
to forget their vomit, were again troubling
the Churches.
Upon learning this, Eusebius, who had the
lead in the Arian heresy, sends and buys the
Meletians with large promises, becomes their
secret friend, and arranges with them for their
assistance on any occasion when he might
wish for it. At first he sent to me, urging me
to admit Arius and his fellows to communion s,
and threatened me in his verbal communica-
tions, while in his letters he [merely] made
a request. And when I refused, declaring that
it was not right that those who had invented
I Cf. Orat. i. 2 and notes. 2 Ad. Ep. Mg. % 22. supr. § 11.
3 [Piolegg. ch. ii. § 3 ^i) aafui.\ Athan. speaks moie openly
against this arrangement, infr. § 71. _
4 [According to the tenses in the original the five months mark
the date not of Alexander's death (April 17, 328), but of the re-
newed Meletian troubles. The settlement did not keep them
quiet for five months. The terminus a quo of the Ave month*
is somewhat doubtful ; but it certainly is not the Council of Nica;a,
see § 71, &c. Montf. Monit. in Fit. S. Athanasii, also Prolegg.
ch. ii. § 3 (i) and ch. v. 5 3 a.] S Ad. Ep. Mg. 23.
\
K 2
132
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
heresy contrary to the truth, and had been
anathematized by the Ecumenical ^ Council,
should be admitted to communion, he caused
the Emperor also, Constantine, of blessed
memory, to write to me, threatening me, in
case I should not receive Arius and his fellows,
with those afflictions, which I have before un-
dergone, and which I am still suffering. The
following is a part of his letter. Syncletius
and Gaudentius, officers of the palace 7, were
the bearers of it.
Part of a Letter from the Emperor Constantine.
Having therefore knowledge of my will,
grant free admission to all who wish to enter
into the Church. For if I learn that you have
hindered or excluded any who claim to be
admitted into communion with the Church,
I will immediately send some one who shall
depose you by my command, and shall re-
move you from your place.
60. When upon this I wrote and endea-
voured to convince the Emperor, that that
anti-Christian heresy had no communion with
the Catholic Church, Eusebius forthwith,
availing himself of the occasion which he had
agreed upon with the Meletians, writes and
persuades them to invent some pretext, so
that, as they had practised against Peter and
Achillas and Alexander, they might devise and
spread reports against us also. Accordingly,
after seeking for a long time, and finding no-
thing, they at last agree together, with the ad-
vice of Eusebius and his fellows, and fabricate
their first accusation by means of Ision, Eu-
dsemon, and Callinicus ^, respecting the linen
vestments 9, to the etfect that I had imposed
a law upon the Egyptians, and had required
its observance of them first. But when certain
Presbyters of mine were found to be present,
and the Emperor took cognizance of the
matter, they were condemned (the Presbyters
were Apis and Macarius), and the Emperor
wrote, condemning Ision, and ordering me to
appear before him. His letters were as
follows'.
Eusebius, having intelligence of this, per-
suades them to wait ; and when I arrive, they
next accuse Macarius of breaking the cup,
and bring against me the most heinous accu-
sation possible, viz. that, being an enemy of
the Emperor, I had sent a purse of gold to
one Philumenus. The Emperor therefore
heard us on this charge also in Psammathia *,
when they, as usual, were condemne'd, and
* Supr. § 7, and de Deer. 27.
7 TToiAaTiroi, vid. Apol. ad Const, f 19.
* Infr. § 71 fin. Sozom. ii. 25.
9 aTi.xa.pi.a., ecclesiastical. [See D.CA. p. X933>]
' They are lost.
« Suburb of Nicomedia, infr. § 65.
driven from the presence ; and, as I returned,
he wrote the following letter to the people.
Constantine, Maximus, Augustus, to the
people of the Catholic Church at Alexandria.
61. Beloved brethren, I greet you well,
calling upon God, Who is the chief wit-
ness of my intention, and on the Only-
begotten, the Author of our Law, Who is
Sovereign over the lives of all men, and Who
hates dissensions. But what shall I say to
you? That I am in good health? Nay,
but I should be able to enjoy better health
and strength, if you were possessed with
mutual love one towards another, and had
rid yourselves of your enmities, through which,
in consequence of the storms excited by con-
tentious men, we have left the haven of
brotherly love. Alas ! what perverseness is
this ! What evil consequences are produced
every day by the tumult of envy which has
been stirred up among you ! Hence it is that
evil reports have settled upon the people of
God. Whither has the faith of righteousness
departed ? For we are so involved in the mists
of darkness, not only through manifold errors,
but through the faults of ungrateful men, that
we bear with those who favour folly, and
though we are aware of them, take no
heed of those who set aside goodness and
truth. What strange inconsistency is this !
We do not convi..'t our enemies, but we follow
the example of robbery which they set us,
whereby the most pernicious errors, finding no
one to oppose them, easily, if I may so speak,
make a way for themselves. Is there no
understanding among us, for the credit of our
common nature, since we are thus neglectful of
the injunctions of the law?
But some one will say, that love is a thing
brought out by nature. But, I ask, how is it
that we who have got the law of God for our
guide in addition to our natural advantages,
thus tolerate the disturbances and disorders
raised by our enemies, who seem inflamed, as
it were, with firebrands ? How is it, that hav-
ing eyes, we see not, neither understand,
though we are surrounded by the intelligence
of the law? What a stupor has seized upon
our life, that we are thus neglectful of
ourselves, and that although God admonishes
us! Is it not an intolerable evil? and ought
we not to esteem such men as our ene-
mies, and not the household and people of
God? For they are infuriated against us,
abandoned as they are : they lay grievous
crimes to our charge, and make attacks upon
us as enemies.
62. And I would have you yourselves to
consider with what exceeding madness they do
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
133
this. The fooHsh men carry their malicious-
ness at their tongues' end. They carry about
with them a sort of leaden anger, so that
they reciprocally smite one another, and in-
volve us by way of increasing their own
punishment. The good teacher is accounted
an enemy, while he who clothes himself
with the vice of envy, contrary to all jus-
tice makes his gain of the gentle temper of
the people ; he ravages, and consumes, he
decks himself out, and recommends himself
with false praises ; he subverts the truth, and
con-upts the faith, until he finds out a hole and
hiding-place for his conscience. Thus their
very perverseness makes them wretched, while
they impudently prefer themselves to places of
honour, however unworthy they may be. Ah !
what a mischief is this !• they say " Such an
one is too old ; such an one is a mere boy ;
the office belongs to me ; it is due to me,
since it is taken away from him, I will gain
over all men to my side, and then I will
endeavour with my power to ruin him." Plain
indeed is this proclamation of their madness to
all the world ; the sight of companies, and
gatherings, and rowers under command 3 in
their offensive cabals. Alas! what preposte-
rous conduct is ours, if I may say it ! Do they
make an exhibition of their folly in the Church
of God? And are they not yet ashamed of
themselves? Do they not yet blame them-
selves? x'Vre they not smitten in their con-
sciences, so that they now at length shew that
they entertain a proper sense of their deceit
and contentiousness ? Theirs is the mere force
of envy, supported by those baneful influences
which naturally belong to it. But those
wretches have no power against your Bishop.
Believe me, brethren, their endeavours will
have no other effect than this, after they
have worn down our days, to leave to them-
selves no place of repentance in this life.
Wherefore I beseech you, lend help to your-
selves ; receive kindly our love, and with
all your strength drive away those who desire
to obliterate from among us the grace of
unanimity ; and looking unto God, love one
another. I received gladly your Bishop Atha-
nasius, and addressed him in such a manner,
as being persuaded that he was a man of God.
It is for you to understand these things, not
for me to judge of them. I thought it becom-
ing that the most reverend Athanasius him-
self should convey my salutation to you,
knowing his kind care of you, which, in
a manner worthy of that peaceable faith which
I myself profess, is continually engaged in the
good work of declaring saving knowledge, and
3 apxiepeiriav.
will be able to exhort you as is suitable,
May God preserve you,, beloved brethren.
Such was the letter of Constantine.
63. After these occurrences the Meletians
remained quiet for a little time, but after
wards shewed their hostility again, and con-
trived the following plot, with the aim of
pleasing those who had hired their services.
The Mareotis is a country district of Alex-
andria, in which Meletius was not able to
make a schism. Now while the Churches still
existed within their appointed limits, and all
the Presbyter.s had congregations in them,
and while the people were living in peace, '
a certain person named Ischyras *, who was
not a clergyman, but of a worthless dis-
position, endeavoured to lead astray the
people of his own village, declaring himself
to be a clergyman. Upon learning this,
the Presbyter of the place informed me of
it when I was going through my visitation of
the Churches, and I sent Macarius the Presbyter
with him to summon Ischyras. They found
him sick and lying in a cell, and charged his
father to admonish his son not to continue any
such practices as had been reported against
him. But when he recovered from his sick-
ness, being prevented by his friends and his
father from pursuing the same course, he
fled over to the Meletians; and they com-
municate with Eusebius and his fellows, and
at last that calumny is invented by them,
that Macarius had broken a cup, and that
a certain Bishop named Arsenius had been
murdered by me. Arsenius they placed in
concealment, in order that he might seem
made away with, when he did not make his
appearance ; and they carried about a hand,
pretending that he had been cut to pieces.
As for Ischyras, whom they did not even
know, they began to spread a report that he
was a Presbyter, in order that what he said
about the cup might mislead the people.
Ischyras, however, being censured by his
friends, came to me weeping, and said that no
such thing as they had reported had been done
by Macarius, and that himself had been
suborned by the Meletians to invent this
calumny. And he wrote the following letter.
To the Blessed pope s Athanasius, Ischyras
sends health in the Lord.
64. As when I came to you, my Lord
Bishop, desiring to be received into the
Church, you reproved me for what I formerly
said, as though I had proceeded to such
lengths of my own free choice, I therefore
4 Cf.
passim].
' 46, 7». ft-
S Cf. de Syn. i6, [and Fest. Ind.
134
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
submit to you this my apology in writing, in
order that you may understand, that violence
was used towards me, and blows inflicted on
me by Isaac and Heraclides, and Isaac of
Letopolis, and those of their party. And
I declare, and take God as my witness in
this matter, that of none of the things which
they have stated, do I know you to be guilty.
For no breaking of a cup or overturning
of the Holy Table ever took place, but they
compelled me by violent usage to assert
all this. And this defence I make and submit
to you in writing, desiring and claiming for
myself to be admitted among the members of
your congregation. I pray that you may have
health in the Lord.
I submit this my handwriting to you the
Bishop Athanasius in the presence of the
Presbyters, Ammonas of Dicella, Heraclius of
Phascos, Boccon of Chenebri, Achillas of
Myrsine, Didymus of Taphosiris, and Justus
from Bomotheus^; and of the Deacons, Paul,
Peter, and Olympius, of Alexandria, and Am-
monius, Pistus, Demetrius, and Gaius, of the
Mareotis.
65. Notwithstanding this statement of Ischy-
ras, they again spread abroad the same charges
against me everywhere, and also reported them
to the Emperor Constantine. He too had
heard before of the affair of the cup in Psam-
mathia ?, when I was there, and had detected
the falsehood of my enemies. But now he
wrote to Antioch to Dalmatius ^ the Censor
requiring him to institute a judicial enquiry
respecting the murder. Accordingly the Cen-
sor sent me notice to prepare for my defence
against the charge. Upon receiving his letters,
although at first I paid no regard to the thing
because I knew that nothing of what they said
was true, yet seeing that the Emperor was
moved, I wrote to my fellow-ministers into
Egypt, and sent a deacon, desiring to learn
something of Arsenius, for I had not seen the
man for five or six years. Well, not to relate
the matter at length, Arsenius was found in con-
cealment, in the first instance in Egypt, and
afterwards my friends discovered him again in
concealment in Tyre also. And what was
most remarkable, even when he was dis-
covered he would not confess that he was Ar-
senius, until he was convicted in court before
* [Cf. the list of Mareotic clergy sjij>r., p. 7a. The three
deacons of Alexandria are in the list, p. 71].
7 Vid. § 60. '
8 Dalmatius was the name of father and son, the brother and
nephew of Constantine. Socrates, Hist. i. 27. gives the title of
Censor to the son ; but the Chron. Pasch. p. 531 (Dind.) gives
It to the father. Valesius, and apparently Tillemont (Emfe-
reurs, vol. 4. p. 657) think Socrates mistaken. The younger
Dalmatius was created Casar by Constantine a few year before his
death ; and as well as his brother Hannibalian, and a number of
other relatives, was put to death by the soldiery, on the death
of Constantine. vid. Hist. Ar. 69. [Gwatkin, p. 108 note].
Paul, who was then Bishop of Tyre, and at last
out of very shame could not deny it.
This he did in order to fulfil his contract
with Eusebius and his fellows, lest, if he were
discovered, the game they were playing should
at length be broken up ; which in fact came to
pass. For when I wrote the Emperor word,
that Arsenius was discovered, and reminded
him of what he had heard in Psammathia con-
cerning Macarius the Presbyter, he stopped the
proceedings of the Censor's court, and wrote
condemning the proceedings against me as
calumnious, and commarded Eusebius and his
fellows, who were coming into the East to appear
against me, to return. Now in order to shew
that they accused me of having murdered
Arsenius (not to bring forward the letters
of many persons on the subject), it shall be
sufficient only to produce one from Alexander
the Bishop of Thessalonica, from which the
tenor of the rest may be inferred. He then
being acquainted with the reports which Ar-
chaph, who is also called John, circulated
against me on the subject of the murder, and
having heard that Arsenius was alive, wrote
as follows.
Letter of Alexander.
To his dearly beloved son and fellow-minis-
ter like-minded, the lord Athanasius, Alex-
ander the Bishop sends health in the Lord.
66. I congratulate the most excellent' Sara-
pion, that he is striving so earnestly to adorn
himself with holy habits, and is thus advancing
to higher praise the memory of his father.
For, as the Holy Scripture somewhere says,
' though his father die, yet he is as though he
were not dead?:' for he has left behind him
a memorial of his life. What my feelings
were towards the ever memorable Sozon, you
yourself, my lord ^°, are not ignorant, for you
know the sacredness of his memory, as well
as the goodness of the young man. I have
received only one letter from your reverence,
which I had by the hands of this youth. I
mention this to you, my lord, in order
that you may know. Our dearly beloved
brother and deacon Macarius, afforded me
great pleasure by writing to me from Con-
stantinople, that the false accuser Archaph
had met with disgrace, for having given out
before all men that a Hve man had been
murdered. That he will receive from the
righteous Judge, together with all the tribe
of his associates, that punishment, which his
crimes deserve, the unerring Scriptures assure
us. May the Lord of all preserve you for
9 Ecclus. 30. ^
10 fieVjTOTo. Theod. HE. i. 5. init.
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
135
very many years, my lord, in every way Tnost
kind.
67. And they who lived with Arsenius bear
witness, that he was kept in concealment for
this purpose, that they might pretend his death ;
for in searching after him we found the person
[who had done so], and he in consequence
wrote the following letter to John, who played
the chief part in this false accusation.
To his dearly beloved brother John, Pinnes,
Presbyter of the Monastery" of Ptemen-
cyrcis, in the nome of Anteopolis, sends
greeting.
I wish you to know, that Athanasius sent
his deacon into the Thebais, to search every-
where for Arsenius ; and Pecysius the Pres-
byter, and Silvanus the brother of Helias, and
Tapenacerameus, and Paul monk of Hypsele,
whom he iirst fell in with, confessed that Ar-
senius was with us. Upon learning this we
caused him to be put on board a vessel, and to
sail to the lower countries with Helias the monk.
Afterwards the deacon returned again suddenly
with certain others, and entered our monastery,
in search of the same Arsenius, and him they
found not, because, as I said before, we had
sent him away to the lower countries; but
they conveyed me together with Helias the
monk, who took him out of the way, to Alex-
andria, and brought us before the Duke ' ;
when I was unable to deny, but confessed that
he was alive, and had not been murdered : the
monk also who took him out of the way con-
fessed the same. Wherefore I acquaint you
with these things, Father, lest you should
determine to accuse Athanasius ; for I said
that he was alive, and had been concealed
with us, and all this is become known in
Egypt, and it cannot any longer be kept
secret.
I, Paphnutius, monk of the same monastery,
who wrote this letter, heartily salute you. I
pray for your health.
The following also is the letter which the
Emperor wrote when he learnt that Arsenius
was found to be alive.
Constantine, Victor, Maximus, Augustus,
to the pope Athanasius.
68. Having read the letters of your wisdom,
I felt the inclination to write in return to your
_" [The iiovri here is not a monastery in the later sense, but
a village or cluster of cells. This intercepted letter demonstrates
the existence of Meletian monks, of which there is other evidence
also: (see below, Introd. to ^it. Aiit. The objection of Wein-
garten to the genuineness of this letter is purely arbitrary)].
\ According to the system of government introduced by Dio-
cletian and Constantine, there were thirty-five military commanders
of the troops, under the Magistri militum, and all of these bore
the name of duces or dukes ; the comites, or counts, were ten out
of the number, _ who were distinguished as companions of the
Emperor, vid. Gibbon, ch. 17. Three of these dukes were stationed
in Egypt [i.e. in the whole prefecture ; one only in the province
of Egypt in the narrower sense].
fortitude, and to exhort you that you would
endeavour to restore the people of God to
tranquillity, and to merciful feelings. For in
my own mind I hold these things to be of the
greatest importance, that we should cultivate
truth, and ever keep righteousness in our
thoughts, and have pleasure especially in those
who walk in the right way of life. But as
concerning those who are deserving of all
execration, I mean the most perverse and
ungodly Meletians, who have at last stultified
themselves by their folly, and are now raising
unreasonable commotions by env)'', uproar, and
tumult, thus making manifest their own un-
godly dispositions, I will say thus much. You
see that those who they pretended had been
slain with the sword, are still amongst us, and
in the enjoyment of life. Now what could be
a stronger presumption against them, and one
so manifestly and clearly tending to their con-
demnation, as that those whom they declared
to have been murdered, are yet in the enjoy-
ment of life, and accordingly will be able to
speak for themselves ?
But this further accusation was advanced
by these same Meletians. They positively
affirmed that you, rushing in with lawless
violence, had seized upon and broken a
cup, which was deposited in the most
Holy Place ; than which there certainly could
not be a more serious charge, nor a more
grievous offence, had such a crime actually
been perpetrated. But what manner of accu-
sation is this ? What is the meaning of this
change and variation and difference in the
circumstances of it, insomuch that they now
transfer this same accusation to another per-
son 2, a fact which makes it clearer, so to
speak, than the light itself, that they designed
to lay a plot for your wisdom ? After this, who
can be willing to follow them, men that have
fabricated such charges to the injury of an-
other, seeing too that they are hurrying them-
selves on to ruin, and are conscious that they
are accusing you of false and feigned crimes ?
Who then, as I said, will follow after them,
and thus go headlong in the way of destruc-
tion ; in that way in which it seems they alone
suppose that they have hope of safety and of
help ? But if they were willing to walk accord-
ing to a pure conscience, and to be directed
by the best wisdom, and to go in the way
of a sound mind, they would easily perceive
that no help can come to them from Divine
Providence, while they are given up to such
doings, and tempt their own destruction. I
should not call this a harsh judgment of them,
but the simple truth.
2 Cf. § 28.
136
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
And finally, I will add, that I wish this
letter to be read frequently by your wisdom
in public, that it may thereby come to the
knowledge of all men, and especially reach
the ears of those who thus act, and thus raise
disturbances ; for the judgment which is ex-
pressed by me according to the dictates of
equity is confirmed also by real facts. Where-
fore, seeing that in such conduct there is so
great an offence, let them understand that I
have thus judged ; and that I have come to
this determination, that if they excite any
further commotion of this kind, I will myself
in person take cognizance of the matter, and
that not according to the ecclesiastical, but
according to the civil laws, and so I will in
future find them out, because they clearly
are robbers, so to speak, not only against
human kind, but against the divine doctrine
itself. May God ever preserve you, beloved
brother !
69. But that the wickedness of the calum-
niators might be more fully displayed, behold
Arsenius also wrote to me after he was dis-
covered in his place of concealment; and as
the letter which Ischyras had written confessed
the falsehood of their accusation, so that of
Arsenius proved their maliciousness still more
completely.
To the blessed Pope Athanasius, Arsenius,
Bishop of those who were heretofore under
Meletius"in the city of the Hypsehtes, to-
gether with the Presbyters and Deacons,
wishes much health in the Lord.
Being earnestly desirous of peace and
union with the Catholic Church, over which
by the grace of God you preside, and wish-
ing to submit ourselves to the Canon of the
Church, according to the ancient rule 3, we
write unto you, dearly beloved Pope, and de-
clare in the name of the Lord, that we will not
for the future hold communion with those who
continue in schism, and are not yet at peace
with the Catholic Church, whether Bishops,
Presbyters, or Deacons. Neither will we take
part with them if they wish to establish any-
thing in a Council ; neither will we send letters
of peace 3^ unto them nor receive such from
them ; neither yet without the consent of you,
the bishop of the metropolis, will we publish any
determination concerning Bishops, or on any
other general ecclesiastical question ; but we
will yield obedience to all the canons that
have heretofore been ordained, after the
example of the Bishops ♦ Ammonian, Ty-
3 Vid. s«/n p. 92, note 3; the (so-called) Apostolical Canon
apparently referred to here, is Can. 27. according to Beveridge.
3» Ct p. 95, note 4.
4 i.e. Meletian Bishops who had conformed ; or, since they are
not in the list, § 71. Catholic Bishops with whom the conforming
party were familiar ; or Meletians after the return of Meletius.
viil. Tilleniont, Mem. vol. 8. D. 658
rannus, Plusian, and the rest. Wherefore
we beseech your goodness to write to us
speedily in answer, and likewise to our fellow-
ministers concerning us, informing them that
we will henceforth abide by the fore-mentioned
resolution and will be at peace with the
Cathohc Church, and at unity with our fellow-
ministers in the [various] districts. And we
are persuaded that your prayers, being ac-
ceptable unto God, will so prevail with Him,
that this peace shall be firm and indissoluble
unto the end, according to the will of God
the Lord of all, through Jesus Christ our
Lord.
The sacred Ministry that is under you, we
and those that are with us salute. Very
shortly, if God permit, we will come to visit
your goodness. I, Arsenius, pray for your
health in the Lord for many years, most
blessed Pope.
70. But a stronger and clearer proof of the
calunniy against us is the recantation of John,
of which the most God-beloved Emperor Con-
stantine of blessed memory is a witness, for
knowing how John had accused himself, and
having received letters from him expressing his
repentance, he wrote to him as follows.
Constantine, Maximus, Augustus to John.
The letters which I have received from your
prudence were extremely pleasing to me,
because I learned from them what I very
much longed to hear, that you had laid aside
every petty feeling, had joined the Com-
munion of the Church as became you, and
were now in perfect concord with the most
reverend Bishop Athanasius. Be assured
therefore that so far I entirely approve of
your conduct ; because, giving up all skir-
mishing, you have done that which is pleasing
to God, and have embraced the unity of His
Church. In order therefore that you may
obtain the accomplishment of your wishes,
I have thought it right to grant you permission
to enter the public conveyance s, and to come
S On the " cursus publicus," vid. Gothofred. in Cod. Theod.
viii. tit. 5. It was provided for the journeys of the Emperor, for
persons whom he summoned, for magistrates, ambassadors, and for
such private persons as the Emperor indulged in theuse of it,
which was gratis. The use was granted by Constantine to the
Bishops who were summoned to Kicaea, as far as it went, in ad-
dition (though aliter Valesius in loc.) to other means of travelling.
Euseb. V. Const, iii. 6. The cursus publicus brought the Bishops
to the Council of Tyre. ibid. iv. 43. In the conference between
Liberius and Constantius, TcitoA.. Hist. ii. 13. it is objected that
the cursus publicus is not sufficient to convey Bishops to the
Council which Liberius proposes; he answers that the Churches
are rich enough to convey their Bisliops as far as the sea. Thus
S. Hilary was compelled (data evectionis copia, Sulp. Sev. Hist.
ii. 57.) to attend at Seleucia, as Alhau. at Tyre. Julian complains
of the abuse of the cursus publicus, perhaps with an allusion to
these Councils of Constantius. vid. Cod. Theod. viii. lit. 5. 1. la.
where Gothofred quotes Liban. Epitaph, in Julian, 'vol. i. p. 569.
ed. Reiske.) Vid. the well-known passage of Ammianus, who
speaks of the Councils being the ruin of the res vehicularia Hist.
xxi. 16. The Eusebians at Philippopolis say the same thing.
Hilar. Frag. iii. 25. The Emperor provided board and perhaps
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
137
to the court * of my clemency. Let it then
be your care to make no delay; but as this
letter gives you authority to use the public
conveyance, come to me immediately, that
you may have your desires fulfilled, and by
appearing in my presence may enjoy that
pleasure which it is fit for you to receive.
May God preserve you continually, dearly
beloved brother.
CHAPTER VI.
Documents connected with the Council of Tyre.
71. Thus ended the conspiracy. The Mele-
tians were repulsed and covered with shame ;
but notwithstanding this Eusebius and his
fellows still did not remain quiet, for it was
not for the Meletians but for Arius and his fel-
lows, that they cared, and they were afraid lest,
if the proceedings of the former should be
stopped, they should no longer find persons
to play the parts ', by whose assistance they
might bring in that heresy. They therefore
again stirred up the Meletians, and persuaded
the Emperor to give orders that a Council
should be held afresh at Tyre, and Count
Dionysius was despatched thither, and a mili-
taiy guard was given to Eusebius and his
fellows. Macarius also was sent as a
prisoner to Tyre under a guard of soldiers ;
and the Emperor wrote to me, and laid a
peremptory command upon me, so that, how-
ever unwilling, I set out. The whole con-
spiracy may be understood from the letters
which the Bishops of Egypt wrote ; but it
will be necessary to relate how it was con-
trived by them in the outset, that so may
be perceived the malice and wickedness
that was exercised against me. There are
in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, nearly
one hundred Bishops ; none of whom laid
anything to my charge; none of the Pres-
byters found any fault with me ; none of
the people spoke aught against me; but it
was the Meletians who were ejected by Peter,
and the Arians, that divided the plot between
them, while the one party claim.ed to them-
selves the right of accusing me, the other of
lodging for the Bishops at Ariminura ; which the Bishops of Aqui-
taiiie, Gaul, and Britain, declined, except three British from
poverty. Sulp. //zii. ii. 56. Hunneric in Africa, after assembling
466 Bishops at Carthage, dismissed them without modes of con-
veyance, provision, or baggage. Victor Utic. Hist. iii. init. In
the Emperor's letter previous to the assembling of the sixth Ecu-
menical Council, A.D. 678, (Harduin, Cone. t. 3. p. 1048 fin.) he
says he has given orders for the conveyance and maintenance of its
members. Pope John Vlll. reminds Ursus, Duke of Venice
{a.d. 876.), of the same duty of providing for the members of
a Council, "secundum pios principes, qui in lalibus munifice
■emper erant intenti." Colet. Concil. (Ven. 1730,) t. xi. p. 14.
<> irrparoirefiov vid. Chrys. on the Statues, p. 382, note 6.
Gothofr. in Cod. Theod. vi. 32, i. i. Castra sunt ubi Princeps est.
Jbid. 35, 1. 15. also K.iesling. de Discipl. Cier. i. 5. p. 16. Beveridge
in Can. Apost. 83. interprets orrpareia of any avil engagement
•s opposed to clerical. « Cf. § 17, note i.
sitting in judgment on the case. I objected to
Eusebius and his fellows as being my enemies
on account of the heresy ; next, I shewed in the
following manner that the person who was
called my accuser was not a Presbyter at all.
When Meletius was admitted into communion
(would that he had never been so admitted ^ !)
the blessed Alexander who knew his craftiness
required of him a schedule of the Bishops
whom he said he had in Egypt, and of the
presbyters and deacons that were in Alex-
andria itself, and if he had any in the country
district. This the Pope Alexander has done,
lest Meletius, having received the freedom of
the Church, should tender 3 many, and thus
continually, by a fraudulent procedure, foist
upon us whomsoever he pleased. Accordingly
he has made out the following schedule of
those in Egypt.
A schedule presented by Meletius to the
Bishop Alexander.
I, Meletius of Lycopolis, Lucius of Antino-
polis, Phasileus of HermopoHs, Achilles of
Cusee, Ammonius of Diospolis.
In Ptolemais, Pachymes of Tentyrse.
In Maximianopolis, Theodorus of Coptus.
In Thebais, Cales of Hermethes, Colluthus of
Upper Cynopolis, Pelagius of Oxyrynchus, Peter
of Heracleopolis, Theon of Nilopolis, Isaac ♦
of Letopolis, Heraclides of Niciopohs ^, Isaac
of Cleopatris, Melas of Arsenoitis.
In Heliopolis, Amos of Leontopolis, Ision of
Athribis.
In Pharbethus, Harpocration of Bubastus,
Moses of Phacusse, Callinicus s of Pelusium,
Eudsemon of Tanis 5, Ephraim of Thmuis.
In Sais, Hermseon of Cynopolis and Busiris,
Soterichus of Sebennytus, Pininuthes of Phthe-
negys, Cronius of Metelis, Agathammon of
the district of Alexandria.
In Memphis, John who was ordered by
the Emperor to be with the Archbishop''.
These are those of Egypt.
And the Clergy that he had in Alexandria
were ApoUonius Presbyter, Irenseus Presbyter,
Dioscorus Presbyter, Tyrannus Presbyter.
And Deacons ; Timotheus Deacon, Antinous
Deacon, Hephsestion Deacon. And Macarius
Presbyter of Parembole ?.
72. These Meletius presented actually in per-
son ^ to the Bishop Alexander, but he made no
mention of the person called Ischyras, nor ever
« Cf. § S9-
3 [TTtoArjo-j) : i.e. palm them off on the church. Cf. Lat. ven-
ditaye.'X 4 or. § 64. 5 Cf. § 60.
6 [The 'archbishop' is Meletius; this is the first occurrence
of the word ; it evidently has not its later fixed sense. The his-
torical allusion is obscure.]
7 A village on the Mareotic lake. vid. Socr. iv. 23. Athan
0pp. ed. Pat. t. 3. p. 86—89.
8 [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (i) sub. fin.^r>Xid. ch. v. § 3 a.]
138
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
professed at all that he had any Clergy in the
Mareotis. Notwithstanding our enemies did
not desist from their attempts, but still he that
was no Presbyter was feigned to be one, for
there was the Count ready to use compulsion
towards us, and soldiers were hurrying us about.
But even then the grace of God prevailed : for
they could not convict Macarius in the matter
of the cup ; and Arsenius, whom they re-
ported to have been murdered by me, stood
before them alive and shewed the falseness of
their accusation. When therefore they were
unable to convict Macarius, Eusebius and his
fellows, who became enraged that they had lost
the prey of which they had been in pursuit, per-
suaded the Count Dionysius, who is one of
them, to send to the Mareotis, in order to see
whether they could not find out something
there against the Presbyter, or rather that they
might at a distance patch up their plot as they
pleased in our absence : for this was their aim.
However, — when we represented that the jour-
ney to the Mareotis was a superfluous under-
taking (for that they ought not to pretend that
statements were defective which they had been
employed upon so long, and ought not now to
defer the matter ; for they had said whatever
they thought they could say, and now being at
a loss what to do, they were making pretences) ;
or if they must needs go to the Mareotis, that
at least the suspected parties should not be
sent,— -the Count was convinced by my reason-
ing, with respect to the suspected persons ; but
they did anything rather than what I proposed,
for the very persons whom I objected against
on account of the Arian heresy, these were they
who promptly went off, viz. Diognius, Maris,
Theodorus, Macedonius, Ursacius, and Valens.
Again, letters were written to the Prefect of
Egypt, and a military guard was provided ; and,
what was remarkable and altogether most sus-
picious, they caused Macarius the accused
party to remain behind under a guard of sol-
diers, while they took with them the accuser 9.
Now who after this does not see through this
conspiracy? Who does not clearly perceive
the wickedness of Eusebius and his fellows?
For if a judicial enquiry must needs take
place in the Mareotis, the accused also ought
to have been sent thither. But if they did not
go for the purpose of such an enquiry, why
did they take the accuser ? It was enough that
he had not been able to prove the fact. But
this they did in order that they might carry on
their designs against the absent Presbyter,
whom they could not convict when present,
and might concoct a plan as they pleased.
For when the Presbyters of Alexandria and
9 Supr. § 13.
of the whole district found fault with them
because they were there by themselves, and
required that they too might be present at
their proceedings (for they said that they
knew both the circumstances of the case,
and the history of the person named Ischyras),
they would not allow them ; and although
they had with them Phih;grius the Prefect of
Egypt ', who was an apostate, and heathen
soldiers, during an enquiry which it was not
becoming even for Catechumens to witness,
they would not admit the Clergy, lest there
as well as at Tyre there might be those who
would expose them.
73. But in spite of these precautions they
were not able to escape detection : for the
Presbyters of the City and of the Mareotis,
perceiving their evil designs, addressed to
them the following protest.
To Theognius, Maris, Macedonius, Theodo-
rus, Ursacius, and Valens, the Bishops who
have come from Tyre, these from the Pres-
byters and Deacons of the Catholic Church
of Alexandria under the most reverend Bishop
Athanasius.
It was incumbent upon you when you came
hither and brought with you the accuser,
to bring also the Presbyter Macarius ; for
trials are appointed by Holy Scripture to be so
constituted, that the accuser and accused may
stand up together. But since neither you
brought Macarius, nor our most reverend
Bishop Athanasius came hither with you, we
claimed for ourselves the right of being present
at the investigation, that we might see that the
enquiry was conducted impartially, and might
ourselves be convinced of the truth. But
when you refused to allow this, and wished, in
company only with the Prefect of Egypt and
the accuser, to do whatever you pleased, we
confess that we saw a suspicion of evil in
the affair, and perceived that your coming
was only the act of a cabal and a conspiracy.
Wherefore we address to you this letter, to be
a testimony before a genuine Council, that it
may be known to all men, that you have
carried on an ex parte proceeding and for your
own ends, and have desired nothing else but
to form a conspiracy against us. A copy of
this, lest it should be kept secret by you, we
have handed m to Palladius also the Con-
troller = of Augustus. For what you have
already done causes us to suspect you, and to
' Cf. Encycl. § 3.
» Curiobus ; the Curiosi (in curis agendis) were properly the
overseers of the public roads, Du Cange in voc, but they became
in consequence a sort of imperial spy, and were called the Em-
peror's eyes. Gothofr. in Cod. Tlieod. t. 2. p. 194. ed. 1665.
Constantius confined them to the school of the Agentes in rebus
(infr. ApoL ad Const. § 10.), under the Master of the Offices.
Gothofr. ibid. p. 192.
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
139
reckon on the like conduct from you here-
after.
I Dionysius Presbyter have handed in this
letter. Alexander Presbyter, Nilaras Presbyter,
Longus Presbyter, Aphthonius Presbyter, Atha-
nasius Presbyter, Amyntius Presbyter, Pistus
Presbyter, Plution Presbyter, Dioscorus Pres-
byter, ApoUonius Presbyter, Sarapion Pres-
byter, Ammonius Presbyter, Gaius Presbyter,
Rhinus Presbyter, ^thales Presbyter.
Deacons ; Marcellinus Deacon, Appianus
Deacon, Theon Deacon, Timotheus Deacon,
a second Timotheus Deacon.
74. This is the letter, and these the names
of the Clergy of the city ; and the following
was written by the Clergy of the Mareotis, who
know the character of the accuser, and who
were with me in my visitation.
To the holy Council of blessed Bishops of
the Catholic Church, all the Presbyters and
Deacons of the Mareotis send health in the
Lord.
Knowing that which is written, ' Speak that
thine eyes have seen,' and, 'A false witness shall
not be unpunished 3, ' we testify what we have
seen, especially since the conspiracy which has
been formed against our Bishop Athanasius has
made our testimony necessary. We wonder
how Ischyras ever came to be reckoned
among the number of the Ministers of the
Church, which is the first point we think it neces-
sary to mention. Ischyras never was a Minister.
of the Church ; but when formerly he repre-
sented himself to be a Presbyter of CoUuthus,
he found no one to believe him, except only
his own relations 1 For he never had a Church,
nor was ever considered a Clergyman by
those who lived but a short distance from his
village, except only, as we said before, by his
own relations. But, notwithstanding he as-
sumed this designation, he was deposed in the
presence of our Father Hosius at the Council
which assembled at Alexandria s, and was ad-
mitted to communion as a layman, and so
he continued subsequently, having fallen from
his falsely reputed rank of presbyter. Of his
character we think it unnecessary to speak, as all
men have it in their power to become ac-
quainted therewith. But since he has falsely
accused our Bishop Athanasius of breaking
a cup and overturning a table, we are neces-
sarily obliged to address you on this point.
We have said already that he never had
a Church in the Mareotis ; and we declare
before God as our witness, that no cup was
broken, nor table overturned by our Bishop,
nor by any one of those who accompanied
him ; but all that is alleged respecting this
affair is mere calumny. And this we say, not
as having been absent from the Bishop,
for we are all with him when he makes his
visitation of the Mareotis, and he never goes
about alone, but is accompanied by all of us
Presbyters and Deacons, and by a considerable
number of the people. Wherefore we make
these assertions as having been present with
him in every visitation which he has made
amongst us, and testify that neither was a
cup ever broken, nor table overturned, but
the whole story is false, as the accuser him-
self also witnesses under his own hand ^.
For when, after he had gone off with
Meletians, and had reported these things
against our Bishop Athanasius, he wished to
be admitted to communion, he was not
received, although he wrote and confessed
under his own hand that none of these things
were true, but that he had been suborned
by certain persons to say so.
75. Wherefore also Theognius, Theodorus,
Maris, Macedonius, Ursacius, Valens, and their
fellows came into the Mareotis, and when they
found that none of these things were true, but
it was likely to be discovered that they had
framed a false accusation against our Bishop
Athanasius, Theognius and his fellows being
themselves his enemies, caused the relations
of Ischyras and certain Arian madmen to say
whatever they wished. For none of the people
spoke against the Bishop ; but these persons,
through fear of Philagrius the Prefect of
Egypt, and by threats and with the support
of the Arian madmen, accomplished whatever
they desired. For when we came to dis-
prove the calum'ny, they would not permit
us, but cast us out, while they admitted
whom they pleased to a participation in their
schemes, and concerted matters with them,
influencing them by fear of the Prefect
Philagrius. Through his means they pre-
vented us from being present, that we might
discover whether those who were suborned
by them were members of the Church or
Arian madmen. And you also, dearly beloved
Fathers, know, as you teach us, that the
testimony of enemies avails nothing. That
what we say is the truth the handwriting ^
of Ischyras testifies, as do also the facts them-
selves, because when we were conscious that
no such thing as was pretended had taken
place, they took with them Philagrius, that
through fear of the sword and by threats they
might frame whatever plots they wished.
These things we testify as in the presence of
God; we make these assertions as knowing
3 Prov. XXV. 7, LXX, xix. 5.
4 Cf. § 13.
S A.D. 324.
« SMpr. I 64.
7 xf'P) «'«/>■• -^poi- "^ Const. § II-
i4o
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
that there will be a judgment held by God ;
desiring indeed all of us to come to you, but
being content with certain of our number, so
that the letters may be instead of the presence
of those who have not come.
I, Ingenius Presbyter, pray you health in the
Lord, beloved fathers. Theon Presbyter, Am-
monas P., Heraclius P., Boccon P., Tryphon
P., Peter P., Hierax P., Sarapion P., Marcus P.,
PtoUarion P., Gaius P., Dioscorus P., Deme-
trius P., Thyrsus P.
Deacons ; Pistus Deacon, Apollos D,, Serras
D., Pistus D., Polynicus D., Ammonius D.,
Maurus D., Hephjestus D., Apollos D., Meto-
pas D., Apollos D., Serapas D., Meliphthongus
D., Lucius D., Gregoras D.
76. The same to the Controller, and to Phila-
grius, at that time Prefect of Egypt.
To Flavins Philagrius, and to Flavius Pal-
ladius, Ducenary^, Officer of the Palace, and
Controller, and to Flavius Antoninus, Com-
missary of Provisions, and Centenary of my
lords the most illustrious Prefects of the
sacred Prajtorium, these from the Presbyters
and Deacons of the Mareotis, a nome of the
Cathohc Church which is under the most
Reverend Bishop Athanasius, we address this
testimony by those whose names are under-
written : —
Whereas Theognius, Maris, Macedonius,
Theodorus, Ursacius, and Valens, as if sent
by all the Bishops who assembled at Tyre,
came into our Diocese alleging that they had
received orders to investigate certain ecclesi-
astical affairs, among which they spoke of the
breaking of a cup of the Lord, of which
information was given them by Ischyras,
whom they brought with them, and who says
that he is a Presbyter, although he is not, —
for he was ordained by the Presbyter Colluthus
who pretended to the Episcopate, and was
afterwards ordered by a whole Council, by
Hosius and the Bishops that were with him,
to take the place of a Presbyter, as he was
before ; and accordingly all that were ordained
by Colluthus resumed the same rank which
they held before, and so Ischyras himself
proved to be a layman, — and the church which
he says he has, never was a church at all, but a
quite small private house belonging to an orphan
boy of the name of Ision ; — for this reason we
have offered this testimony, adjuring you by
Almighty God, and by our Lords Constantine
Augustus, and the most illustrious Caesars his
sons, to bring these things to the knowledge of
8 On the different kinds of Ducenaries, vid. Gothofr. in Cod.
Theod. XI. vii. i. Here, as in Euseb. Hist. vii. 30. the word
stands for a Procurator, whose annual pay amounted to 200 sester-
da, vid. Salmas. Hist Aug. t. 1. p. 533. In like manner a Cen-
ienary is one who receives 100.
their piety. For neither is he a Presbyter of
the Catholic Church nor does he possess a
church, nor has a cup ever been broken, but
the whole story is false and an invention.
Dated in the Consulship of Julius Con-
stantius the most illustrious Patrician 9, brother
of the most religious Emperor Constantine
Augustus, and of Rufinus Albinus, most illus-
trious men, on the tenth day of the month
Thoth^°.
These were the letters of the Presbyters.
77. The following also are the letters and
protests of the Bishops who came with us to
Tyre, when they became aware of the con-
spiracy and plot.
To the Bishops assembled at Tyre, most
honoured Lords, those of the Catholic Church
who have come from Egypt with Athanasius
send greeting in the Lord.
We suppose that the conspiracy which has
been formed against us by Eusebius, Theognius,
Maris, Narcissus, Theodorus, Patropliilus, and
their fellows is no longer uncertain. From the
very beginning we all demurred, through our
fellow-minister Athanasius, to the holding of
the enquiry in their presence, knowing that the
presence of even one enemy only, much more
of many, is able to disturb and injure the
hearing of a cause. And you also yourselves
know the enmity which they entertain, not
only towards us, but towards all the orthodox,
how that for the sake of the madness of Arius,
and his impious doctrine, they direct their
assaults, they form conspiracies against all.
And when, being confident in the truth, we
desired to shew the falsehood, which the
Meletians had employed against the Church,
Eusebius and his fellows endeavoured by some
means or other to interrupt our representations,
and strove eagerly to set aside our testimony,
threatening those who gave an honest judg-
ment, and insulting others, for the sole puipose
of carrying out the design they had against us.
Your godly piety, most honoured Lords, was
probably ignorant of their conspiracy, but
we suppose that it has now been made mani-
fest. For indeed they have themselves plainly
disclosed it; for they desired to send to the
Mareotis those of their party who are suspected
by us, so that, while we were absent and
remained here, they might disturb the people
and accomplish what they wished. They knew
9 The title Patrician was revived bj' Constantine as a personal
distinction. It was for life, and gave precedence over all tlie great
officers of state except the Consul. It was usually bestowed on
favourites, or on ministers as a reward of services. Gibbon, Hist.
ch. 17. This Julius Constantius, who was the father of Julian,
was the first who bore the title, with L. Optatus, who had been
consul the foregoing year. lUustrissimus was the highest of the
three ranks of honour, ibid.
1° [Sep. 8. 335 A.D. See note on leap-year at the end of the
table of Egyptian months, below, Intrcd. to I etteis.\
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
141
that the Arian madmen, and CoUuthians^ and
Meletians, were enemies of the CathoHc Church,
and therefore they were anxious to send them,
that in the presence of our enemies they might
devise against us whatever schemes they
pleased. And those of the Meletians who
are here, even four days previously (as they
knew that this enquiry was about to take place),
despatched at evening certain of their party,
as couriers, for the purpose of collecting Me-
letians out of Egypt into the Mareotis, because
there were none at all there, and Colluthians
and v\rian madmen, from other parts, and to
prepare them to speak against us. For you
also know that Ischyras himself confessed
before you, that he had not more than seven
persons in his congregation. When therefore
we heard that, after they had made what
preparations they pleased against us, and had
sent these suspected persons, they were going
about to each of you, and requiring your
subsciiptions, in order that it might appear
as if this had been done with the consent
of you all ; for this reason we hastened to
write to you, and to present this our testimony;
declaring that we are the objects of a con-
spiracy under which we are suffering by and
llirough them, and demanding that having
the fear of God in your minds, and condemning
their conduct in sending whom they pleased
without our consent, you would refuse your
subscriptions, lest they pretend that those
things are done by you, which they are
contriving only among themselves. Surely
it becomes those who are in Christ, not to
regard human motives, but to prefer the truth
before all things. And be not afraid of their
threatenings, which they employ against all,
nor of their plots, but rather fear God. If
it was at all necessary that persons should be
sent to the Mareotis, we also ought to have
been there with them, in order that we might
convict the enemies of the Church, and point
out those who were aliens, and that the investi-
gation of the matter might be impartial. For
you know that Eusebius and his fellows con-
trived that a letter should be presented, as com-
ing from the Colluthians, the Meletians, and
Arians, and directed against us : but it is evident
that these enemies of the Catholic Church speak
nothing that is true concerning us, but say
everything against us. And the law of God
forbids an enemy to be either a witness or a
judge. Wherefore as you will have to give
an account in the day of judgment, receive
I CoUuthus formed a schism on the doctrine that God was not
the cause of any sort of evil, e.g. did not inflict pain and suffering.
Though a Priest, he tdok on himself to ordain, even to the Priest-
hood L§ 12]- St. Alexander even seems to imply that he did so for
money. Theod. H.E. i. 3. [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 2.1
this testimony, and recognising the conspiracy
which has been framed against us, beware,
if you are requested by them, of doing anything
against us, and of taking part in the designs of
Eusebius and his fellows. For you know, as
we said before, that they are our enemies, and
you are aware why Eusebius of Caesarea be-
came such last year^ We pray that you may
be in health, greatly beloved Lords.
78. To the most illustrious Count Flavius
Dionysius, from the Bishops of the OathoHc
Church in Egypt who have come to Tyre.
We suppose that the conspiracy which
has been formed agamst us by Eusebius,
Theognius, Maris, Narcissus, Theodoras, Pa-
trophilus and their fellows, is no longer
uncertain. From the very beginning we all
demurred, through our fellow-minister Atha-
nasius, to the holding of the enquiry in their
presence, knowing that the presence of even
one enemy only, much more of many, is
able to disturb and injure the hearing of
a cause. For their enmity is manifest which
they entertain, not only towards us, but also
towards all the orthodox, because they direct
their assaults, they form conspiracies against all.
And when, being confident in the truth, we de-
sired to shew the falsehood which the Meletians
had employed against the Church, Eusebius
and his fellows endeavoured by some means or
other to interrupt our representations, and
strove eagerly to set aside our testimony,
threatening those who gave an honest judg-
ment and insulting others, for the sole purpose
of carrying out the design they had against us.
Your goodness was probably ignorant of the
conspiracy which they have formed against us,
but we suppose that it has now been made
manifest. For indeed they have themselves
plainly disclosed it ; for they desired to send
to the Mareotis those of their party who are
suspected by us, so that, while we were absent
and remained here, they might disturb the
people and accomplish what they wished.
They knew that Arian madmen, Colluthians,
and Meletians were enemies of the Church,
and therefore they were anxious to send them,
that in the presence of our enemies, they
might devise against us whatever schemes they
pleased. And those of the Meletians who are
here, even four days previously (as they knew
that this enquiry was about to take place), de-
spatched at evening two individuals of their
own party, as couriers, for the purpose of col-
lecting Meletians out of Egypt into the Ma-
reotis, because there were none at all there,
and Colluthians, and Arian madmen, from other
a [Ath. had refused to attend a synod at Csesarea, a.d. 334.
See Thdt. H.E. i. 28, Prolegg. ch. ii. § 4. and D.C.B. ii. 315 b.]
142
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
parts, and to prepare them to speak against us.
And your goodness knows that he himself con-
fessed before you, that he had not more than
seven persons in his congregation. When
therefore we heard that, after they had made
what preparations they pleased against us, and
had sent these suspected persons, they were
going about to each of the Bishops and re-
quiring their subscriptions, in order that it
might appear that this was done with the con-
sent of -them all; for this reason we hastened
to refer the matter to your honour, and to pre-
sent this our testimony, declaring that we are
the objects of a conspirac}', under which we
are suffering by and through them, and de-
manding of you that having in your mind the
fear of God, and the pious commands of our
most religious Emperor, you would no longer
tolerate these persons, but condemn their con-
duct in sending whom they pleased without
our consent.
I Adamantius Bishop have subscribed this
letter, Ischyras, Arnmon, Peter, Ammonianus,
Tyrannus, Taurinus, Sarapammon, ^lurion,
Harpocration, Moses, Optatus, Anubion, Sa-
prion, Apollonius, Ischyrion, Arbaethion, Pota-
mon, Paphnutius, Heraclides, Theodbrus,Agath-
ammon, Gaius, Pistus, Athas, Nicon, Pelagius,
Theon, Paninuthius, Nonnus, Ariston, Theo-
dorus, Irenaeus, Blastammon, Philippus, ApoUos,
Dioscorus, Timotheus of Diospohs, Macarius,
Heraclammon, Cronius, Myis, Jacobus, Ariston,
Artemidorus, Phinees, Psais, Heraclides.
Another from the same.
79. The Bishops of the Catholic Church
who have come from Egypt to Tyre, to the
most illustrious Count Flavius Dionysius.
Perceiving that many conspiracies and
plots are being formed against us through
the machinations of Eusebius, Narcissus, Fla-
cillus, Theognius, Maris, Theodorus, Patro-
philus, and their fellows (against whom we
wished at first to enter an objection, but
were not permitted), we are constrained to
have recourse to the present appeal. We
observe also that great zeal is exerted in
behalf of the Meletians, and that a plot is laid
against the Catholic Church in Egypt in our
persons. Wherefore we present this letter to
you, beseeching you to bear in mind the
Almighty Power of God, who defends the
kingdom of our most religious and godly
Emperor Constantine, and to reserve the hear-
ing of the affairs which concern us for the
most religious Emperor himself. For it is but
reasonable, since you were commissioned by his
Majesty, that you should reserve the matter
for him upon our appealing to his piety. We
<:an no longer endure to be the objects of the
treacherous designs of the fore-mentioned Euse-
bius and his fellows, and therefore we demand
that the case be reserved for the most religious
and God-beloved Emperor, before whom we
shall be able to set forth our own and the
Church's just claims. And we are convinced
that when his piety shall have heard our cause,
he will not condemn us. Wherefore we
again adjure you by Almighty God, and by our
most religious Emperor, who, together with
the children of his piety, has thus ever been
victorious 3 and prosperous these many years,
that you proceed no further, nor suffer your-
selves to move at all in the Council in relation
to our affairs, but reserve the hearing of them
for his piety. We have likewise made the same
representations to my Lords the orthodox
Bishops.
80. Alexander*, Bishop of Thessalonica, on
receiving these letters, wrote to the Count
Dionysius as follows.
The Bishop Alexander to my master Diony-
sius.
I see that a conspiracy has evidently been
formed against Athanasius ; for they have
determined, I know not on what grounds,
to send all those to whom he has objected,
without giving any information to us, although
it was agreed that we should consider together
who ought to be sent. Take care therefore
that nothing be done rashly (for they have
come to me in great alarm, saying that the
wild beasts have already roused themselves,
and are going to rush upon them ; for they
had heard it reported, that John had sent
certains), lest they be beforehand with us, and
concoct what schemes they i)lease. For you
know that the CoUuthians who are enemies
of the Church, and the Arians, and Meletians,
are all of them leagued together, and are able
to work much evil. Consider therefore what
is best to be done, lest some mischief arise,
and we be subject to censure, as not having
judged the matter fairly. Great suspicions are
also entertained of these persons, lest, as being
devoted to the Meletians, they should go
through those Churches whose Bishops are
here^, and raise an alarm amongst them, and
so disorder the whole of Egypt. For they
see that this is already taking place to a great
extent.
Accordingly the Count Dionysius wrote to
Eusebius and his fellows as follows.
81. This is what I have already mentioned
to my lords, Flacillus? and his fellows, that
Athanasius has come forward and complained
3 Cf. Euseb. V. Const, ii. 48. 4 Cf. § 16.
S Cf. §§ 17, 65, 70. 6 At Tylre.
7 Perhaps president of the Council, ct. § 20. [But see Prolegg.
ch. ii. § 5.]
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
U3
that those very persons have been sent whom
he objected to; and crying out that he has
been wronged and deceived. Alexander the
lord of my soul?* has also written to me on the
subject ; and that you may perceive that what
his Goodness has said is reasonable, I have
subjoined his letter to be read by you. Re-
member also what I wrote to you before : I
impressed upon your Goodness, my lords,
that the persons who were sent ought to be
commissioned by the general vote and decision
of all. Take care therefore lest our proceed-
ings fall under censure, and we give just
grounds of blame to those who are disposed
to find fault with us. For as the accuser's side
ought not to suffer any oppression, so neither
ought the defendant's. And I think that there
is no slight ground of blame against us, when
my lord Alexander evidently disapproves of
what we have done.
82. While matters were proceeding thus we
withdrew from them, as from an assembly of
treacherous men^, for whatsoever they pleased
they did, whereas there is no man in the world
but knows that ex parte proceedings cannot
stand good. This tlite divine law determines ;
for when the blessed Apostle was suffering
under a similar conspiracy and was brought to
trial, he demanded, saying, 'The Jews from Asia
ought to have been here before thee, and object,
if they had aught against me^.' On which occa-
sion Festus also, when the Jews wished to lay
such a plot against him, as these men have now
laid against me, said, ' It is not the manner of
Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he
which is accused have the accuser face to face,
and have licence to answer for himself concern-
ing the crime laid against him^°.' But Eusebius
and his fellows both had the boldness to pervert
the law, and have proved more unjust even
than those wrong-doers. For they did not
proceed privately at the first, but when in
consequence of our being present they found
themselves weak, then they straightway went
out, like the Jews, and took counsel together
alone, how they might destroy us and bring in
their heresy, as those others demanded Barab-
bas. For this purpose it was, as they have
themselves confessed, that they did all these
things.
83. Although these circumstances were amply
sufficient for our vindication, yet in order that
the wickedness of these men and the freedom
of the truth might be more fully exhibited,
I have not felt averse to repeat them again, in
order to shew that they have acted in a manner
inconsistently with themselves, and as men
7» i.e. my beloved lord.
9 Acts xxiv. 18, 19.
8 Jer. ix. 3.
•o Acts XXV. 16.
scheming in the dark have fallen foul of their
own friends, and while they desired to destro)
us have like insane persons wounded them-
selves. For in their investigation of the subject
of the Mysteries, they questioned Jews, they
examined Catechumens^; 'Where were you,'
they said, ' when Macarius came and over-
turned the Table?' They answered, ' We
were within ; ' whereas there could be no
oblation if Catechumens were present. Again,
although they had written word everywhere,
that Macarius came and overthrew everything,
while the Presbyter was standing and cele-
brating the Mysteries, yet when they questioned
whomsoever they pleased, and asked them,
'Where was Ischyras when Macarius rushed
in ? ' those persons answered that he was
lying sick in a cell. Well, then, he that was
lying was not standing, nor was he that lay
sick in his cell offering the oblation. Be-
sides whereas Ischyras said that certain books
had been burnt by Macarius, they who
were suborned to give evidence, declared that
nothing of the kind had been done, but that
Ischyras spoke falsely. And what is most
remarkable, although they had again written
word everywhere, that those who were able to
give evidence had been concealed by us, yet
these persons made their appearance, and they
questioned them, and were not ashamed when
they saw it proved on all sides that they were
slanderers, and were acting in this matter clan-
destinely, and according to their pleasure.
For they prompted the witnesses by signs,
while the Prefect threatened them, and the
soldiers pricked them with their swords ; but
the Lord revealed the truth, and shewed them
to be slanderers. Therefore also they concealed
the minutes of their proceedings, which they
retained themselves, and charged those who
wrote them to put out of sight, and to com
mit to no one whomsoever. But in this
also they were disappointed ; for the person
who wrote them was Rufus, who is now public
executioner in the Augustalian^ prefecture,
and is able to testify to the truth of this ; and
Eu.sebius and his fellows sent them to Rome
by the hands of their own friends, and Julius
the Bishop transmitted them to me. And
now they are mad, because we obtained and
read what they wished to conceal.
84. As such was the character of their
machinations, so they very soon shewed plainly
the reasons of their conduct. For when they
went away, they took the Arians with them to
Jerusalem, and there admitted them to com-
munion, having sent out a letter concerning
' Vid. S 46.
■^ Vid. Encyc. | j, p. J3, iiots a.
144
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
them, parts of which, and the beginning, is as
follows.
The holy Council by the grace of God
assembled at Jerusalem, to the Church of
God which is in Alexandria, and to the Bishops,
Presbyters, and Deacons, in all Egypt, the
Thebais, Libya, Pentapolis, and throughout
the world, sends health in the Lord.
Having come together out of different Pro-
vinces to a great meeting which we have held
for the consecration of the Martyrys* of the
Saviour, which has been appointed to the
service of God the King of all and of His
Christ, by the zeal of our most God-beloved
Emperor Constantine, the grace of God hath
afforded us more abundant rejoicing of heart;
which our most God-beloved Emperor himself
hath occasioned us by his letters, wherein
he hath stirred us up to do that which is
right, putting away all envy from the Church
of God, and driving far from us all malice, by
which the members of God have been heretofore
torn asunder, and that we should with simple
and peaceable minds receive Arius and his
fellows, whom envy, that enemy of all goodness,
has caused for a season to be excluded from
the Church. Our most religious Emperor has
also in his letter testified to the correctness
of their faith, which he has ascertained from
themselves, himself receiving the profession of
't from them by word of mouth, and has now
iiade manifest to us by subjoining to his own
betters the men's orthodox opinion in writing.
85. Every one that hears of these things
must see through their treachery. For they
made no concealment of what they were
doing ; unless perhaps they confessed the
truth without wishing it. For if I was the
hindrance to the admittance of Arius and
his fellows into the Church, and if they
were received while I was suffering from
their plots, what other conclusion can be ar-
rived at, than that these things were done on
their account, and that all their proceedings
against me, and the story which they fabri-
cated about the breaking of the cup and the
murder of Arsenius, were for the sole purpose
of introducing impiety into the Church, and of
preventing their being condemned as heretics ?
For this was what the Emperor threatened
formerly in his letters to me. And they were
not ashamed to write in the manner they did,
and to affirm that those persons whom the
whole Ecumenical Council anathematized held
orthodox sentiments. And as they undertook
to say and do anything without scruple, so
they were not afraid to meet together 'in a
3 Vid. de Syn. \ at.
Martyrium.]
3* [i.e. Church, see D.CA. s.v.
corner,' in order to overthrow, as far as was
in their power, the authority of so great a
Council.
Moreover, the price which they paid for false
testimony yet more fully manifests their wicked-
ness and impious intentions. The Mareotis,
as I have already said, is a country district
of Alexandria, in which there has never been
either a Bishop or a Chorepiscopus-*; but the
Churches of the whole district are subject
to the Bishop of Alexandria, and each Pres-
byter has under his charge one of the largest
villages, which are about ten or more in
numbers. Now the village in which Ischyras
lives is a very small one, and possesses so few
inhabitants, that there lias never been a church
built there, but only in the adjoining village.
Nevertheless, they determined, contrary to
ancient usage ^, to nominate a Bishop for this
place, and not only so, but even to appoint
one, who was not so much as a Presbyter.
Knowing as they did the unusual nature of
such a proceeding, yet being constrained by
the promises they had given in return for his
false impeachment of me, they submitted even
to this, lest that abandoned person, if he were
ungratefully treated by them, should disclose
the truth, and thereby shew the wickedness
of Eusebius and his fellows. Notwithstanding
this he has no church, nor a people to obey
him, but is scouted by them all, like a dog?,
although they have even caused the Emperor
to write to the Receiver-General (for every-
thing is in their power), commanding that a
church should be built for him, that being
posessed of that, his statement may appear
credible about the cup and the table. They
caused him immediately to be nominated a
Bishop also, because if he were without a
church, and not even a Presbyter, he would
appear to be a false accuser, and a fabricator
of the whole matter. At any rate he has no
people, and even his own relations are not
obedient to him, and as the name which he
retains is an empty one, so also the following
letter is ineffectual, which he keeps, making
a display of it as an exposure of the utter
4 That Chorepiscopi were real Bishops, vid. Bevereg. in Cone
Ancyr. Can. 13. Routh in Cone. Neoca;s. Can. 13. referring to
Rhabanus Maurus. Thomassin on the other hand denies thai
they were Bishops, Discipl- Eccl- i. 2. c. i. [see DC. A. s.v.]
5 Ten under each Presbyter. Vales ad Socr. Hist. i. 27. Ten
altogether, Montfaucon in loc. with more probability; and so
Tillemont, vol. 8. p. 20. [Six villages are mentioned supr. % 64,
6 It was against the Canon of Sardica, and doubtless against
ancient usage, to ordain a Bishop for so small a village, vid.
Bingham, Antiqu. II. xii., who, however, maintains by instances,
that at least small towns might be sees. Also it was against usage
that a layman, as Ischyras, should be made a Bishop, ibid. x.
4, &c. St. Hilary, however, makes bim a Deacon. FrapH,
ii. 16.
7 Dogs without owners, and almost in a wild state, abound,
as is well known, in Eastern cities; vid. Psalm lix. 6, 14, 15.
a Kings ix. 35, 36. and for the view taken in Scripture of dogs,
vid. Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 56 [and Diet. Bib. s.v.].
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
H5
wickedness of himself and of Eusebius and
his fellows.
The Letter of the Receiver-General^.
Flavius Hemerius sends health to the Tax-
collector of the Mareotis.
Ischyras the Presbyter having petitioned the
piety of our Lords, Augusti and Caesars, that
a Church might be built in the district of
Irene, belonging to Secontarurus9, their divinity
has commanded that this should be done as
soon as possible. Take care therefore, as soon
as you receive the copy of the sacred Edict,
which with all due veneration is placed above,
and the Reports which have been formed be-
fore my devotion, that you quickly make an
abstract of them, and transfer them to the
Order book, so that the sacred command may
be put in execution.
86. While they were thus plotting and
scheming, I went up ^° and represented to the
Emperor the unjust conduct of Eusebius and
his fellows, for he it was who had commanded
the Council to be held, and his Count presided
at it. When he heard my report, he was greatly
moved, and wrote to them as follows.
Constantine, Victor ^ Maximus, Augustus, to
the Bishops assembled at Tyre.
I know not what the decisions are which
you have arrived at in your Council amidst
noise and tumult : but somehow the truth
seems to have been perverted in consequence
of certain confusions and disorders, in that
you, through your mutual contentiousness,
which you are resolved should prevail, have
failed to perceive what is pleasing to God.
However, it will rest with Divine Providence
to disperse the mischiefs which manifestly are
found to arise from this contentious spirit, and
to shew plainly to us, whether you, while
assembled in that place, have had any regard
for the truth, and whether you have made your
decisions uninfluenced by either favour or
enmity. Wherefore I wish you all to assemble
with all speed before my piety, in order that
you may render in person a true account of
your proceedings.
The reason why I have thought good to
write til us to you, and why I summon you
before me by letter, you will learn from what I
am going to say. As I was entering on a late
occasion our all-happy home of Constantinople,
which bears our name (I chanced at the time
to be on horseback), on a sudden the Bishop
Athanasius, with certain others whom he had
8 Catholjcus, § 14, Apol. Corut. § 10. [The mention, below,
of 'August! and Csesars' makes 337 the earliest likely date for
this letter.] 9 Cf. § 17. note 7. [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 4.]
'<> Cf. § 9. « Euseb. V. Const, ii. 48.
with him, approached me in the middle of the
road, so unexpectedly, as to occasion me much
amazement. God, who knoweth all things, is
my witness, that I should have been unable at
first sight even to recognise him, had not some
of my attendants, on my naturally inquiring of
th(;m, informed me both who it was, and under
what injustice he was suifering. I did not
hovvever enter into any conversation with him at
that time, nor grant him an interview ; but when
he requested to be heard I was refusing, and
all but gave orders for his removal ; when with
increasing boldness he claimed only this favour,
that you should be summoned to appear, that
he might have an opportunity of complaining
before me in your presence, of the ill-treatment
he has met with. As this appeared to me
to be a reasonable request, and suitable to the
times, I willingly ordered this letter to be
written to you, in order that all of you, who
constituted the Council which was held at
Tyre, might hasten without delay to the Court"
of my clemency, so as to prove by facts that
you had passed an impartial and uncorrupt
judgment. This, I say, you must do before
me, whom not even you will deny to be a true
servant of God.
For indeed through my devotion to God, peace
is preserved everywhere, and the Name of God
is truly worshipped even by the barbarians,
who have hitherto been ignorant of the truth.
And it is manifest, that he who is ignorant of the
truth, does not know God either. Nevertheless,
as I said before, even the barbarians have now
come to the knowledge of God, by means
of me. His true servant3, and have learned
to fear Him Whom they perceive from actual
facts to be my shield and protector everywhere.
And from this chiefly they have come to know
God, Whom they fear through the dread which
they have of me. But we, who are supposed to
set forth (for I will not say to guard) the holy
mysteries of His Goodness, we, I say, engage
in nothing but what tends to dissension and
hatred, and, in short, whatever contributes
to the destruction of mankind. But hasten,
as I said before, and all of you with all speed
come to us, being persuaded that I shall en-
deavour with all my might to amend what is
amiss, so that those things specially may be
preserved and firmly established in the law
of God, to which no blame nor dishonour may
attach; while the enemies of the law, who
under pretence of His holy Na.me bring in
manifold and divers blasphemies, shall be
» vraaTOtrttov , § 70. note 6.
3 "Once in an entertainment, at which he (Constantine) received
Bishops, he made the remark that he too was a Bishop ; using
pretty much these words in my hearing, 'You are Bishops ot
matters within the Church, I am appointed by God to be Bishop
of matters external to it." Euseb. Vii. Const, iv. 2j.
146
APOLOGIA CONTRA ARIANOS.
scattered abroad, and entirely crushed, and
utterly destroyed.
87. When Eusebius and his fellows read this
letter, being conscious of what they had done,
they prevented the rest of the Bishops from
going up, and only themselves went, viz. Euse-
bius, Theognius, Patrophilus, the other Euse-
bius, Ursacius, and Valens. And they no longer
said anything about the cup and Arsenius
(for they had not the boldness to do so),
but inventing another accusation which con-
cerned the Emperor himself, they declared
before him, that Athanasius had threatened
that he would cause the corn to be withheld
which was sent from Alexandria to his own
home 4. The Bishops Adamantius, Anubion,
Agathammon, Arbethion, and Peter, were
present and heard this. It was proved also
by the anger of the Emperor ; for although
he had written the preceding letter, and had
condemned their injustice, as soon as he
heard such a charge as this, he was imme-
diately incensed, and instead of granting me
a hearing, he sent me away into Gaul. And
this again shews their wickedness further ;
for when the younger Constantine, of blessed
memory, sent me back home, remembering
what his father had written s, he also wrote as
follows.
Constantine Caesar, to the people of the
Catholic Church of the city of Alexandria.
I suppose that it has not escaped the know-
ledge of your pious minds, that Athanasms,
the interpreter of the adorable Law, was sent
away into Gaul for a time, with the intent
that, as the savageness of his bloodthirsty and
inveterate enemies persecuted him to the
hazard of his sacred life, he might thus
escape suffering some irremediable calamity,
through the perverse dealing of those evil
men. In order therefore to escape this,
he was snatched out of the jaws of his assail-
ants, and was ordered to pass some time under
my government, and so was supplied abund-
antly with all necessaries in this city, where he
lived, although indeed his celebrated virtue,
relying entirely on divine assistance, sets at
nought the sufferings of adverse fortune. Now
seeing that it was the fixed intention of our
master Constantine Augustus, my Father, to
restore the said Bishop to his own place, and
to your most beloved piety, but he was taken
away by that fate which is common to all men,
and went to his rest before he could accom-
plish his wish ; I have thought proper to fulfil
that intention of the Emperor of sacred
4 Constantinople. 5 [See Bright, Hist. Writ. p. xii.
note 3, and on the date of this letter, Prolegg. ch. v. S 3 b, and
note 6 below.]
memory which I have inherited from him.
When he comes to present himself before you,
you will learn with what reverence he has
been treated. Indeed it is not wonderful,
whatever I have done on his behalf; for the
thoughts of your longing desire for him, and
the appearance of so great a man, moved
my soul, and urged me thereto. May Divine
Providence continually preserve you, beloved
brethren.
Dated from Treveri the 15th before the Cal-
ends of July ^.
88. This being the reason why I was sent
away into Gaul, who, I ask again, does not
plainly perceive the intention of the Emperor,
and the murderous spirit of Eusebius and his
fellows, and that the Emperor had done this in
order to prevent their forming some more des-
perate scheme ? for he listened to them in sim-
plicity 7. Such were the practices of Eusebius
and his fellows, and such their machinations
against me. Who that has witnessed them
will deny that nothing has been done in my
favour out of partiality,, but that that great
number of Bishops both individually and
collectively wrote as they did in my behalf
and condemned the falsehood of my enemies
justly, and in accordance with the truth?
Who that has observed such proceedings
as these will deny that Valens and Ursacius
had good reason to condemn themselves,
and to write ^ as they did, to accuse them-
selves when they repented, choosing rather
to suffer shame for a short time, than to
undergo the punishment of false accusers for
ever and ever 9 ?
89. Wherefore also my blessed fellow-
ministers, acting justly and according to the
laws of the Church, while certain affirmed that
my case was doubtful, and endeavoured to
compel them to annul the sentence which was
passed in my favour, have now endured all man-
ner of sufferings, and have chosen rather to
be banished than to see the judgment of so
many Bishops reversed. Now if those genuine
Bishops had withstood by words only those
who plotted against me, and wished to undo
all that had been done in my behalf; or if
they had been ordinary men, and not the
• June 17. A.D. 337 [see Gwatk. Stud., 136].
7 e;r))K0U(r6 ykp ottAws. Montfaucon in Onomast. (Athan. t. 2.
ad calc.) points out some passages in his author, where k-nax.o\>ew,
like vn-aKoueii/, means " to answer." vid. Apol. Const. § i6
init. Orat. iii. 27 fin. 8 Cf. § 58.
9 Here ends thi second part of the Apology, as is evident
by turning back to § 58. (supr. p. 130) to which this paragraph
is an allusion. The express o'lject of the second part was to prove,
what has now been proved by documents, that Valens and Ur-
sacius did but succumb to plain facts which they could not resist.
It is observable too from this passage that the Apology was writtea
before their relapse, i.e. before A.D. 351 or 352. The remaining
two sections are wriaen after 357, as they mention the fall of
Liberius and Hosius, and speak of Constantius in different lan-
guage from any which has been found above. [Introdd. to Apol,
Const, and Hist. Ar.]
DEFENCE AGAINST THE ARIANS.
147
Bishops of illustrious cities, and the heads
of great Churches, there would have been
room to suspect that in this instance they
too had acted contentiously and in order to
gratify me. But when they not only endea-
voured to convince by argument, but also
endured banishment, and one of them is
Liberius, Bishop of Rome, (for although he
did not endure '° to the end the sufferings of
banishment, yet he remained in his exile for
two years, being aware of conspiracy formed
against us), and since there is also the great
Hosius, together with the Bishops of Italy, and
of Gaul, and others from Spain, and from Egypt,
and Libya, and all those from Pentapolis (for
although for a little while, through fear of the
threats of Constantius, he seemed not to resist
them ^ yet the great violence and tyrannical
power exercised by Constantius, and the many
insults and stripes inflicted upon him, proved
that it was not because he gave up my cause,
but through the weakness of old age, being
unable to bear the stripes, that he yielded to
them for a season), therefore I say, it is al-
together right that all, as being fully convinced,
should hate and abominate the injustice and
the violence which they have used towards
me ; especially as it is well known that I have
10 See Hist. Ar. § 41.
Cf. Apol. F-ug., § s, and Hist. Ar. % 45.
suffered these things on account of nothing
else but the Arian impiety.
90. Now if anyone wishes to become ac-
quainted with my case, and the falsehood of
Eusebius and his fellows, let him read what has
been written in my behalf, and let him hear the
witnesses, not one, or two, or three, but that
great number of Bishops ; and again let him
attend to the witnesses of these proceedings,
Liberius and Hosius, and their fellows, who
when they saw the attempts made against us,
chose rather to endure all manner of sufferings
than to give up the truth, and the judgment
which had been pronounced in our favour.
And this they did with an honourable and
righteous intention, for what they suffered
proves to what straits the other Bishops were
reduced. And they are memorials and records
against the Arian heresy, and the wickedness
of false accusers, and afford a pattern and
model foe those who come after, to contend
for the truth unto death ^, and to abominate
the Arian heresy which fights against Christ,
and is a forerunner of Antichrist, and not
to believe those who attempt to speak against
me. For the defence put forth, and the
sentence given, by so many Bishops of
high character, are a trustworthy and sufficient
testimony in our behalf.
> Ecclus. iv. 28.
ADDITIONAL NOTE ON APOL. C. ARIANOS, S 50.
List of Bishops present at Sardica.
[The materials for an authentic list are (l) the names given by Athanasius, Apol. c. Ar. 50, previous to the
lists of bishops from various provinces who signed the letter of the council when in circulation. These names,
given witli no specification of their sees, are 77 in number. (2) The list of signatures to the letter of the council
to Julius, given by Hilary, Fragm. ii., 59 in number. The signatures to the letters discovered by Maffei and
printed in Migne, Pair. Gr. xxvi. 1331, sqq. Of these, 26 sign (3) the council's letter to the Mareotic Churches,
and 61, in part the same, sign (4) the letter of Athanasius to the same [Letter 46 in this volume). These
signatures comprise 30 na?nes not given by Hilary, w^hile those in (i) add six which are absent from (2) and
(3) alike. This raises the total to 95. We add (5) Gratus of Carthage, present according to the Greek text of
the Canons, although he afterward signed the letter in a local council of his own, like Maximin of Treveri,
Verissimus of Lyons, and Arius of Palestine, who are therefore given by Athanasius in his second list (the
former two being omitted from the first) : also Euphrates of Cologne, who was sent by Constans to Antioch wdth
the council's decisions (Prolegg. ch. ii. § 6), and was therefore most likely present at the council itself. We
thus get 97 in all.
This total is confirmed if we subtract from the '170 more or less' of Hist. Arian. 15 the 76 seceders
to Philippopolis (Sabinus in Socr. ii. 16), 73 of whom sign their letter, given by Hilary. This leaves 94 'more
or less,' so that the list now to be given, in elucidation of that of Athanasius, has strong claims to rank as
approximately correct. The numbers after the names refer to the sources (i, 2, 3, 4, 5) specified above.
I. AoOhWIS [l). See unknown ; 2. Aetius (l, 3), Tkessalonica in Macedonia ; 3. Alexander (i, 4), Cy/ara
(i.e. Cyparissus?) in Achaia; 4. Alexander (2), Montcmnae {^) in Achaia; 5. Alexander (i, 2, 3), Larissa
in Thessaly; 6. Alypius (i, 2, 3), Megara in Achaia; 7. Amantius (l, 4), Viminacium, by deputy ;
8. Ammonius (4), See unknoivn ; 9. Anianus (i, 2, 4), Casiuio in Spain; 10. Antigonus (i, 4), Pella,
or Fallene in Macedonia; 11. Appianus (4), See unknown; 12. Aprianus (i, 4), Ftiabio [Pdovto) in
148
ADDITIONAL NOTE ON APOL. C. ARIANOS, § 50.
Fannonia; 13. Aprianus (4), See unknown; 14. Arius (l, 2, 3), of Palestine, See unknown (see note on
Hist. Ar. i2>) ; 15. AscLEPAS (i, 2, 4), Caaa ; 16. hST^^lvs {l, 2, ■^),[Fetra in"] Arabia ; IJ. Athanasius
(l, 2, 3, 4), Alexandria; 18. Athenodorus (i, 2, 3,4), Platcea in Achaia', 19. Bassus (l, 2, 3), Dio-
cletianapolis "in Macedonia" (really in Thrace); 20. Calepodius (i, 2, 3), of Campania (1 Naples);
21. Calvus (2, 4), Castrum Martis in Dacia Ripensis ; 22. Caloes or 'Chalbis' (l, 4), See unknown;
23. Castiis (i, 2, 4), Saragassa in Spain ; 24. Cocras (2), Asapofebiae in Achaia (= Asopus), perhaps
the 'Socrates' of (i) ; 25. Cydonius (4), Cydon in Crete; 26. Diodorus (i, 2, 4), Tenedos; 27. DiONYSlus
(i, 2, 3), Elida (Elis?) in Achaia; 28. DioscoRUS (i, 2, 3), Thrace, See unknown; 29. Dometius (or
Domitianus) (i, 4), Acaria Constantias (possibly Casira Constantia =^ Contances) ; 30. Domitianus (l, 2, 3),
Asturica in Spain; 31. Eliodorus (i, 2, 3), Nicopolis; 32. EucARPUS (i, 4), Opus in Achaia; 33. Eucarpus
(4), See unknown; 34. Eucissus (4), Cissamus in Crete; 35. EuGENius (4 = Euagrius in 2?), Heraclea
(in Lucania ? texts very corrupt) ; 36. EuGENlUS (l ?, 4), See unknown ; 37. EULOGIUS (i, 4), See unknown ;
Euphrates, see below (97) ; 38. Eutasius (2), Pannonia, See unknown; 39. EuTERius (i, 2), ' Frocia de
Cayndo'' (corrupt) ; 40. EUTYCHIUS (l, 4), Methane in Achaia ; 41. EUTYCHIUS (l, 2), Achaia, See unknown \
42. Florentius (i, 2, 4), Emerita in Spain ; 43. Fortunatianus (i, 2), Aquileia ; Galea (see above (22) ;
44. Gaudentius (i, 2, 4), Naissus; 45. Gerontius (i, 2, ■^,^),a Macedaniain Brevii^) in Hil. ; Gratus, see
below (96) ; 46. Helianus (l, 4), Tyrtana (?); Heliodorus, see above (31); 47. Hermogenes (i, 4), Sicyaii^);
48. Hymenaeus (i, 2, 4), Hypata in Thessaly; 49. Januarius (l, 2, 4), Beneventum in Campania; 50. JOHN
(3), See unknown; 51. JONAS (l, 2, 3), Particopolis in Macedonia; 52. Irenaeus (i, 2, 4), Scyros in Achaia ;
53. JULIANUS (i, 2, 4), of Thebes in Achaia (or Thera ? see note to Letter 46) ; 54. Julianus (i, 4), See unknown ;
Julius, see below (95); Lerenius (2), see above (52); 55. Lucius (i, 2,3,4), Hadrianople in Thrace;
56. Lucius ('Lucillus' Ath. twice) (l, 2, 4), Verona; 57. Macedonius (1,2,4), Ulpiana in Dardania ;
58. Marcellus (2, 4, Marcellinus in i),Aticyra; 59. Makcus {1,2, /^), Siscia on the Save ; 60. Martyrius
(2, 4), Naupactus in Achaia ; 61. Martyrius (i, 4), See unknown ; 62. Maximus (i, 2), Luca in Tuscany ;
63. Maximus (i.e. Maximinus) f4), Treviri; 64. Musonius (i, 4), Heraclea in Crete; 65. Moyses (or
Musaeus, i, 2), Thebes in 'Thessaly; 66. Olympius (4), Aeni in Thrace-, 67. Osius (Hosius), (i, 2, 3),
Cordova; 68. Palladius (1,2, 4), Dium in Macedonia ; 69. Paregorius (l, 2, 3, 4), .Srw// m Dardama;
70. Patricius (i), ^^•(f unknown; 71. Peter (i), iVif unhtown; 72. Philologius (i), .S« unknown i
73. Plutarchus (i, 2, 3), Fatrae in Achaia; 74. Porphyrius (l, 2, 3, 4), Fhilippi in Macedonia;
75. Praetextatus (i, 2, 4), Barcelona ; 76. Protasius (l, 2, 4), i^/Z/aw ; 77. Protogenes (i, 2, 4),
Sardica; 78. Restitutus (i, 3), See unknozun; 79. Sapricius (i), 5"^^ unknown-, 80. Severus (4), Chalcis
in Thessaly (Euboea) ; 81. Severus (i, 2, 3), Ravenna-, Socrates (i), see above, no. 24; 82. Spudasius
(l). See unknown; 83. Stercorius (i, 2, 4), Canusium in Apulia-, 84. Symphorus (i, 4), Hierapythna
in Crete; TiTlus (2), see above (40) ; 85. Trypho (l, 2, 4), Achaia (See uncertain from corruption of text) ;
86. Valens (i, 2, 3), 'Scio' in Dacia Ripensis-, 87. Verissimus (2, 4, text of latter gives 'Broseus' cor-
ruptly), Lyons; 88. Vincentius (i, 2, 3), Capua; 89. Vitalis (i, 2), Aquae in Dacia Ripensis-, 90. VlTALXS
I, 3, 4)1 Vertara in Africa; 91. Ursacius (i, 2, 4), Brixia in Italy; 92. ZosiMUS (l, 2, 4), Lychnidus
or Lignidus in Dacia; 93. ZosiMUS (i, 4), .^orr^a Margi in Moesia; 94. ZosiMUS (l, 4), See unknown i
95. Julius (i, 4), Rome (by deputies) ; 96. Gratus (5), Carthage ; 97. Euphrates (5), Cologne.
The names, both of bishops and of sees, have suffered much in transcription, and the above list is the result
of comparing the divergent errors of the various lists. The details of the latter will be found in the originals,
and in the discussion of the BaUerini, on whose work (in Leonis M. 0pp. vol. iii. pp. xlii. sqq.) our list
is founded. In some cases the names of the see are clearly corrupt beyond all recognition. The signatures
appended to the canons in the collections of councils, are taken (with certain uncritical adaptations) from
the Hilarian list, with the addition, in some copies, of Alexander (3 supra), whose name, therefore, has
probably dropped out of the Hilarian text in course of transmission.]
DE DECRETIS,
OR
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
This letter must have been written in the interval between the return of Athanasius ia
346 and his flight in 356. Acacius was already (,§ 3) Bishop of Csesarea (339) ; Eusebius of
Nicomedia is not referred to as though still living (he died 342). Moreover the language
of § 2 ("for in no long time they will turn to outrage," &c.) implies a period of actual
peace, but with a prospect of the repetition of the scenes of the year 339. This actually
occurred in 356. Accordingly we must probably place the tract under the sole reign
of Constantius, between 351 and the end of 355.
It is written in answer to a friend who in disputing with Arians had been posed by their
objection to the use of non-scriptural terms in the Nicene Definition. He accordingly
asks for some account of what the council had done.
Athanasius begins his answer by stigmatising the evasions and inconsistency of the
Arianisers, and describing their conduct at the council, and how they eventually subscribed to
the terms now complained of (i — 5). He then investigates the meaning of the divine
Sonship (6 — 14), and how its true meaning is brought out by the other titles of the Son
(15 — 17). Coming to the non-scriptural expressions he shews how they were forced upon
the council by the evasions of the Arians (18 — 20), and that they express no sense not
to be found in Scripture (21 — 24). Moreover, they had already been in use in the Church, as
is shewn by extracts from Theognostus, the two Dionysii, and Origen (25 — 27), Lastly
(28 — 32) he discusses the term dyeurjroi, applied by the Arians (especially Asterius) to the
Father, in contrast, not to the creation, but to the Son, who is thereby implied to be yeVijros.
He insists on * Father ' not * dyevrjros ' as the divine title authorised by Scripture. Lastly he
appends, in proof of what he states in § 3, the letter of Eusebius to the people of Csesarea,
containing the creed of the council, which, for reasons there stated, we have inserted above,
pp. 73—76.
The interest of the letter is principally threefold ; first on account of its notice of the
proceedings at Nicaea (cf. ad Afr. 5), one of the few primary sources of our knowledge of
what took place there : secondly, on account of its fragments of early writers, especially the
Dionysii, of whom more will be said in the introduction to the next tract. With regard to
Theognostus, the quotations in this tract and in Se?-ap. iv. 9 are important in view of the
somewhat damaging accounts of his teaching in the few other writers (Gregory of Nyssa,
Photius) who mention him.
Thirdly, the term ayevrfTos demands attention. It is impossible to give its exact force in
idiomatic English : the rendering * Ingenerate ' adopted by Newman is perhaps the most
unfortunate one imaginable. 'Uncreated,' a possible substitute, is also open to objection,
firstly, as not distinguishing the word from the derivatives of KviCeiv, noielv, brnxiovpydv,
secondly, as giving it a passive sense, which does not inherently attach to it For
lack of a better word, * Unoriginate ' may perhaps be adopted. ' That which has not (or
cannot) come to be,' ' that which is not the result of a process,' — is what the word strictly
signifies ' — ' das UngewordeneS It was therefore strictly applicable to the Son as well as
to the Father. But throughout the earlier stages of the Arian controversy the question
was embarrassed by the homophones ytfurfros and dyevprjroi, generate or begotten, and
unbegotten. The confusion of thought due to the resemblance of sound is reflected in
the confusion of readings in the MSS. Athanasius himself {Orat i. 56) perceives the distinc-
tive sense of dyewr^ros. In the present tract and in Orat. i. 30, he has dyevriros only in view,
the idea of begetting being absent. Here (and cf. de Syn. 46, note 5) he is denying that the
Father is alone dyemjTos, uncreated or without a * becoming.' Accordingly although the word
yevvrjetn-a was consecrated and safeguarded in the Creed of Nicaea (Begotten not made), and
although the distinctness of the derivatives of the two verbs was felt by Athanasius, and
pointed out by others (Epiph. Jlcer. 64, 8), the use of either group of words was avoided
by (Catholics as dangerous. A clear distinction of the words and of their respective ap-
plicability is made by John Damascene jFid. Orth. I. viii. (see Lightfoot, Ignat. voL 2,
excursus on Eph. § 7, Thilo, ubi supra^ Introd. p. 14, and Harnack, Dg. 2, p. 193 note).
DE DECRETIS.
OR
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
CHAPTER I.
Introduction.
TTie complaint of the Avians against the Nicene
Council; their fickleness ; they are like Jews ;
their employment offeree instead of reason.
I. Thou hast done well, in signifying to me
the discussion thou hast had with the advo-
cates of Arianism, among whom were certain
of the friends of Eusebius, as well as very many
of the brethren who hold the doctrine of
the Church. I hailed thy vigilance for the
love of Christ, which excellently exposed the
irreligion ' of their heresy ; while I marvelled
at the effrontery which led the Arians, after all
the past detection of unsoundness and futility
in their arguments, nay, after the general
conviction of their extreme per terseness, still
to complain like the Jews, " Why did the
Fathers at Nicaea use terms not in Scripture %
' Of the essence ' and ' One in essence ? ' "
Thou then, as a man of learning, in spite of
their subterfuges, didst convict them of talking
to no purpose ; and they in devising them
were but acting suitably to their own evil
« evo-e'^eia, ao-e'jSeia, &c., here translated "religion, irreligion,
religious, &c. &c." are technical words throughout, being taken
from S. Paul's text, " Great is the mystery oigodliness" evtre^eias,
i.e. orthodoxy. Such too seems to be the meaning of ''godly ad-
monitions," and "godly judgments," and "this godly and well-
learned rnan," in our Ordination Services. The Latin translation
is"pius," "pietas." It might be in some respects suitably ren-
dered by " devout" and its derivatives. On its lamiliar use in the
controversy depends the blasphemous jest of Eudoxius, Ariaii
Bishop of Constantinople, which was received with loud laughter
in the Cathedral, and remained in esteem down to Socrates' day,
" The Father is dcre/3r);, as being without devotion, the Son evo-e/Srjs,
devout, as paying devotion to the Father." Socr. Hist. ii. 43.
Hence Arius ends his Letter to Eusebius with oAijews eiro-e'/Ste.
Theod. Hist, i, 4.
2 It appears that the Arians did not venture to speak dis-
respectfully of the definition of the Council till the date (a.d. 352)
of this work, when Acacius headed them. Yet the plea here used,
the unscriptural character of its symbol, had been suggested to
Constantius on his accession, a.d. 337, by the Arian priest, the
favourite of Constantia, to whom Constantine had entrusted his
will, Theod. Hist. ii. 3 ; and Eusebius of Csesarea glances at it,
at the time of the Council, in the letter to his Church, which is
•subjoined to this Treatise.
disposition. For they are as variable and
fickle in their sentiments, as chameleons in
their colours 3 ; and when exposed they look
confused, and when questioned they hesitate,
and then they lose shame, and betake them-
selves to evasions. And then, when detected
in these, they do not rest till they invent fresh
matters which are not, and, according to the
Scripture, ' imagine a vain thing 4 ' ; and all
that they may be constant to their irreligion.
Now such endeavours 5 are nothing else
than an obvious token of their defect of
reason ^, and a copying, as I have said,
of Jewish malignity. For the Jews too, when
convicted by the Truth, and unable to con-
front it, used evasions, such as, ' What sign
doest Thou, that we may see and believe
Thee? What dost Thou work?? though so
many signs were given, that they said them-
selves, ' What do we I* for this man doeth
many miracles ^' In truth, dead men were
raised, lame walked, blind saw afresh, lepers
were cleansed, and the water became wine,
and five loaves satisfied five thousand, and all
wondered and worshipped the Lord, confessing
that in Him were fulfilled the prophecies, and
that He was God the Son of God ; all but the
Pharisees, who, though the signs shone brighter
than the sun, yet complained still, as ignorant
men, ' Why dost Thou, being a man, make
3 Alexander also calls them chameleons, Socr. i. 6. p. 12.
Athanasius so calls the Meletians, Hist. Arian. § 79. Cyril com-
pares them to "the leopard which cannot change his spots." Dial.
ii. init. t. v. i. Aub., Naz. Or. 28. 2. On the fickleness of the
Arians, vid. infra, § 4. &c. Orat. ii. 40. He says, ad Ep. Mg. 6.
that they considered Creeds as yearly covenants; and de Synod.
§ 3. 4. as State Edicts, vid. also § 14. and fiassiin. " What wonder
that they fight against their fathers, when they fight against them-
selves?" § 37. 4 Ps. ii. I.
5 en-txetpri^a. and so Orat. i. § 44. init. but infra. § 25. eiri^ec
prifj-ara means more definitely reasonings or argumentations.
6 aAoyi'as ; an allusion frequent in At'nanasius, to the judicial
consequence of their denying the Word of God. Thus, just below,
n. 3. " Denying the Word" or Reason " of God, reason have they
none." Also Orat. i. § 35. fin. § 40. init. § 62. Orat. ii. § 7. init.
Hence he so often calls the Arians "mad" and "deranged;"
e.g. " not aware how ' mad ' their ' reason ' is." Orat. i. § 37 .
7 John vi. 30. ^ \\>. .\i. 47.
DE DECRETIS, Etc.
151
Thyself God?? Insensate, and verily blind
in understanding ! they ought contrariwise
to have said, " Why hast Thou, being God,
become man ? " for His works proved Him
God, that they might both worship the good-
ness of the Father, and admire the Son's
Economy for our sakes. However, this they
did not say ; no, nor liked to witness what
He was doing ; or they witnessed indeed, for
this they could not help, but they changed
their ground of complaint again, *' Why healest
Thou the paralytic, why makest Thou the
born-blind to see, on the sabbath day ? " But
this too was an excuse, and mere murmuring ;
for on other days as well did the Lord heal
' all manner of sickness, and all manner of
disease ', ' but they complained still according to
their wont, and by calling Him Beelzebub, pre-
ferred the suspicion of Atheism % to a recanta-
tion of their own wickedness. And though in
such sundry times and divers manners the
Saviour shewed His Godhead and preached
the Father to all men, nevertheless, as kicking
against the pricks, they contradicted in the
language of folly, and this they did, according
to the divine proverb, that by finding occa-
sions, they might separate themselves from the
truth 3.
9 lb. X. 33. _ I Matt. iv. 23.
' Or ungodliness, a9edr>)Tos. Thus Aetius was called 6 Meos,
the ungodly, de Synod. % 6 ; and Arius complains that Alexander
had expelled him and his from Alexandria, lo? ai-epcin-ous aSc'ous.
Theodor. Nisi. i. 4. "Atheism" and "Atheist" imply intention,
system, and profession, and are so far too strong a rendering of
the Greek. Since Christ was God, to deny Him was to deny God.
The force of the term, however, seems to be, that, whereas the
Son had revealed the " unknown God," and destroyed the reign
of idols, the denial of the Son was bringing back idolatry and its
attendant spiritual ignorance. Thus conir. Gent. § 29. fin. he speaks
of " the Greek idolatry as full of all Atheism " or ungodliness, and
contrasts with it the knowledge of " the Guide and Framer of the
Universe, the Father's Word," "that through Him ' we may discern
His Father,' and the Greeks may know ' how far they have separated
themselves from the truth.'" And Oral. ii. 43. he classes Arians
with the Greeks, who " though they have the name of God in their
mouths, incur the charge of 'Atheism,' because they know not the
real and true God, 'the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.' " (vid.
also Basil in Eunoin. ii. 22.) Shortly afterwards he gives a further
reason for the title, observing that Arianism was worse than pre-
vious heresies, such as Manicheism. inasmuch as the latter denied
the Incarnation, but Arianism tore from God's substance His con-
natural Word, and, as far as its words went, infringed upon the per-
fections and being of the first Cause. And so ad IiJ>. yS£g. § 17. lin.
he says, that it alone, beyond other heresies, " has been bold against
the Godhead Itself in a mad way {fxaviicuiTepov, via. foregoing note),
denying that there is a Word, and that the Father was always
Father." Elsewhere he speaks more generally, as if Arianism
introduced "an Atheism or rather Judaism 'against the Scrip-
ture;,' being next door to Heathenism, so that its disciple cannot be
even named Christian ; for all such tenets are ' contrary to the
Scriptures;'" and he makes this the reason why the Nicene
Fathers stopped their ears and condemned it. ad £/. yS^-. § 13.
For the same reason he calls the heathen aSeoL, atheistical or
ungodly, "who are arraigned of irreligion by Divine Scripture."
contr. Gent. § 14. vid. eiSoiAoiv aOeorriTa. § 46. init. Moreover,
he calls the Arian persecution wor^e than the pagan 'cruelties,'
and therefore "a Babylonian Atheism," iT/. Encyci. § 5. as
not allowing the Cathohcs the use of prayer and baptism, with
a reference to Dan. vi. 11, <lc. Thus too he calls Constantius
atheist, for his treatment of Hosius ; oiire toi' S^ov </>o^T)9el; 6 aSeos.
Hist. Arian. 45. Another reason for the title seems to have
lain in the idolatrous character of Arian worship * on its own
shewing,' viz. as worshipping One whom they yet maintained
to be a creature. [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) a, suo.Jtti.l
3 A reference to Prov. xviii. i. which runs in the LXX. "a man
seeketh occasions, when desirous of separating himself from
friends- '
2. As then the Jews of that day, for acting
thus wickedly and denying the Lord, were
with justice deprived of their laws and of the
promise made to their fathers, so the Arian.s,
Judaizing now, are, in my judgment, in cir-
cumstances like those of Caiaphas and the con-
temporary Pharisees. For, perceiving that
their heresy is utterly unreason nble, they in-
vent excuses, "Why was this dehned, and not
that ? " Yet wonder not if now they practise
thus ; for in no long time they will turn to out-
rage, and next will threaten ' the band and the
captain ♦.' Forsooth in these their heterodoxy
has its support, as we see ; for denying the
Word of God, reason have they none at all,
as is equitable. Aware then of this, I would
have made no reply to their interrogations :
but, since thy friendliness s has asked to know
the transactions of the Council, I have without
any delay related at once what then took place,
shewing in few words, how destitute Arianism
is of a religious spirit, and how their one busi-
ness is to frame evasions.
CHAPTER IL
CONDUCT OF THE ARIANS TOWARDS THE
NICENE COUNCIL.
Ignorant as well as irreligious to attempt to
reverse an Ecumenical Council : proceedings
at Niccea : Eusebians then signed what they
now complain of: on the unanimity of true
teachers and the process of tradition : changes
of the Arians,
And do thou, beloved, consider whether
it be not so. If, the devil having sowed their
hearts with this perverseness^, they feel confi-
dence in their bad inventions, let them defend
themselves against the proofs of heresy which
have been advanced, and then will be the
time to find fault, if they can, with the defini-
tion framed against them?. For no one, on
4 Apparently an allusion to Joh. xviii. 12. Elsewhere, he spealct
of "the chief captain" and "the governor," with an allusion to
Acts xxiii. 22 — 24. iVc. Hist. Arian. § 66. fin. vid. also § 2. A^oL
contr. Arian. §8. also § 10. and 45. Orat. ii. § 43. Ep. Eficycl. % 5.
Against the use of violence in religion, vid. Hist. Arian. § 33. 67.
(Hil. ad Const. 1. 2.) On the other hand, he observes, that at
Nicjea, "it was not necessity which drove the judges to" their
decision, " but all vindicated the Truth from deliberate purpose."
ad Ep. /Eg. 13.
5 6ta0ctri?. vid. also Hist. Arian. §45. Orat. ii. §4. where
Parker maintains without reason that it should be translated,
" external condition." vid. also Theod. Hist. i. 4. init.
6 en-to'Tret'pai'TO? ToO 6ia^6Aou, the allusion is to Matt. xiii. 25,
and is very frequent in Athan., chiefly with a reference to Arianism.
He draws it out at length, Orat. ii. § 34. Elsewhere, he uses the
image for the evil influences introduced into the soul upon Adam's
fall, contr. Apoll. i. § 15. as does S. Irenseus, Hcer. iv. 40. n. 3.
using it of such as lead to back-sliding in Christians, ibid. v. 10.
n. I. Gregory Nyssen, of the natural passions and of false reason
misleading them, de An. et Resurr. p. 640. vid. also Leon. Ep. 156.
c. 2.
7 The Council did two things, anathematise the Arian positions
(at the end of the Creed), and establish the true doctrine by the
insertion of the phrases, "of the substance" and "one in sub-
stance." Athan. says that the Arians must not criticise the latter
152
DE DECRETIS, OR
being convicted of murder or adultery, is at
liberty after the trial to arraign the sentence
of the judge, why he spoke in this way and
not in that^. For this does not exculpate
the convict, but rather increases his crime
on the score of petulance and audacity. In
like manner, let these either prove that their
sentiments are religious (for they were then
accused and convicted, and their complaints
are subsequent, and it is just that those who are
under a charge should confine themselves to
their own defence), or if they have an unclean
conscience, and are aware of their own irre-
ligion, let them not complain of what they do
not understand, or they will bring on themselves
a double imputation, of irreligion and of ignor-
ance. Rather let them investigate the matter
in a docile spirit, and learning what hitherto
they have not known, cleanse their irreligious
ears with the spring of truth and the doctrines
of religion 9.
3. Now it happened to Eusebius and his
fellows in the Nicene Council as follows : —
while they stood out in their irreligion, and
attempted their fight against God^ the terms
they used were replete with irreligion ; but
the assembled Bishops who were three hun-
dred more or less, mildly and charitably re-
quired of them to explain and defend them-
selves on religious grounds. Scarcely, how-
ever, did they begin to speak, when they
were condemned ^ and one differed from
another; then perceiving the straits in which
their heresy lay, they remained dumb, and
by their silence confessed the disgrace which
came upon their heterodoxy. On this the
Bishops, having negatived the terms they had
invented, published against them the sound
and ecclesiastical faith ; and, as all subscribed
it, Eusebius and his fellows subscribed it
also in those very words, of which they are
before they had cleared themselves of the former. Thus he says
presently, that they were at once irreligious in their faith and
Ignorant in their criticism ; and speaks of the Council negativing
their formulae, and substituting those which were "sound and
ecclesiastical." vid. also n. 4.
8 And so S. "Leo passim concerning the Council of Chalcedon,
" Concord will be easily established, if the hearts of all concur in
that faith which, &c., no discussion being allowed whatever
concerning any retractation," JEp. 94. He calls such an act a " mag-
num sacrilegium," Ep. 157. c. 3. "To be seeking for what has
been disclosed, to retract what has been perfected, to tear up what
has been laid down (definita), what is this but to be unthankful for
what we gained?" Ep. 162. vid. the whole of it. He says that the
attempt is " no mark of a peace-maker but a rebel." Ep, 164. c. 1.
fin. vid. also Epp. 145, and 156, where he says, none can assail
what is once determined, but "aut antichristus aut diabolus." c. 2.
9 Vid. Orat. iii. § 28.
I 6eoji.a.xeiv, Beo/xaxoi.. vid. Acts V. 39, xxiii. 9. are of very
frequent use in Athan. as is xP'fTo/Aaxot.in speaking of the Arians,
■vid. infra passim, also dvTi/u.axo/iie^'Oi t<3 oreorijpi, Ep. Encycl. § 5.
And in the beginning of the controversy, Alexander ap. Socr. i. 6.
p. 10. b. c. p. 12. p. 13. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 729. And so fleo/ioxo!
yAoio-o-a, Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 27. fin. xP'<'"ro^tdx'"''- ^P- 236.
init. vid. also Cyril (Thesaurus, p. 19 e.p. 24 e.). 6'eo^idxoi is used
of Other heretics, e.g. the Manichees, by Greg. Naz. Orat. 45. § 8.
* i.e. "convicted themselves" inlV. § 18. init. eavrCiv del KaTrj-
yopoi, ad. E/. Mg. % 6. Le. by their variations, vid. Tit. iii. 11.
avroKaraxpiTOs.
now complaining, I mean, "of the essence"
and " one in essence," and that " the Son
of God is neither creature or work, nor in the
number of things originated3, but that the
Word is an offspring from the substance of the
Father." And what is strange indeed, Eusebius
of Caesarea in Palestine, who had denied the
day before, but afterwards subscribed, sent to
his Church a letter, saying that this was the
Church's faith, and the tradition of the Fathers;
and made a public profession that they were
before in error, and were rashly contending
against the truth. For though he was ashamed
at that time to adopt these phrases, and
excused himself to the Church in his own
way, yet he certainly means to imply all this
in his Epistle, by his not denying the " one in
essence," and " of the essence." And in this
way he got into a difficulty ; for while he was
excusing himself, he went on to attack the
Arians, as stating that "the Son was not
before His generation," and as thereby re-
jecting His existence before His birth in the
flesh. And this Acacius is aware of also,
though he too through fear may pretend
otherwise because of the times and deny the
fact. Accordingly I have subjoined at the
end the letter of Eusebius, that thou mayest
know from it the disrespect towards their own
doctors shewn by Christ's enemies, and sin-
gularly by Acacius himself'*.
4. Are they not then committing a crime,
in their very thought to gainsay so great and
ecumenical a Council ? are they not in trans-
gression, when they dare to confront that good
definition against Arianism, acknowledged, as
it is, by those who had in the first instance
taught them irreligion ? And supposing, even
after subscription, Eusebius and his fellows did
change again, and return like dogs to their own
vomit of irreligion, do not the present gain-
sayers deserve still greater detestation, because
they thus sacrifice^ their souls' liberty to others ;
and are willing to take these persons as
masters of their heresy, who are, as James^
has said, double-minded men, and unstable
in all their ways, not having one opinion,
but changing to and fro, and now recommend-
ing certain statements, but soon dishonouring
them, and in turn recommending what just
now they were blaming? But this, as the
3 yexnjTSv.
4 The party he Is writing against is the Acacian, of whom he
does not seem to have had much distinct knowledge. He contrasts
them again and again in the passages which follow with the Euse-
bians of the Nicene Council, and says that he is sure that the
ground tbey take when examined will be found substantially the
same as the Eusebian. vid. § 6 init. et alib. § 7. init. § 9. circ.Jin.
§ 10. circ. Jin. § 13. init. rore ical vvv- § 18. circ. Jin. % 28. fin
[On Acacius see Prolegg. ch. ii. \ 8 (2) b.]
5 irpoTrivofTes vid. de Syn. § 14.
* James i, 8.
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
^53
Shepherd has said, is ''the child of the devil 7,"
and the note of hucksters rather than of doctors.
For, what our Fathers have delivered, this
is truly doctrine; and this is truly the token
of doctors, to confess the same thing with each
other, and to vary neither from themselves nor
from their fathers ; whereas they who have not
this character are to be called not true doctors
but evil. Thus the Greeks, as not witnessing
to the same doctrines, but quarrelling one with
another, have no truth of teaching ; but the
holy and veritable heralds of the truth .agree
together, and do not differ. For though they
lived in different times, yet they one and all
tend the same way, being prophets of the
one God, and preaching the same Word har-
moniously^
5. And thus what Moses taught, that Abra-
ham observed ; and what Abraham observed,
that Noah and Enoch acknowledged, discrimi-
nating pure from impure, and becoming ac-
ceptable to God. For Abel too in this way
witnessed, knowing what he had learned from
Adam, who himself had learned from that
Lord, who said, when He came at the end
of the ages for the abolishment of sin, " I
give no new commandment unto you, but
an old commandment, which ye have heard
from the beginning9," Wherefore also the
blessed Apostle Paul, who had learned it
from Him, when describing ecclesiastical
functions, forbade that deacons, not to say
bishops, should be double-tongued '°; and in
his rebuke of the Galatians, he made a broad
declaration, "If anyone preach any other Gospel
unto you than that ye have received, let him be
anathema, as I have said, so say I again. If even
we, or an Angel from heaven should preach unto
you any other Gospel than that ye have received,
let him be anathema^" Since then the Apostle
thus speaks, let these men either anathematise
Eusebius and his fellows, at least as changing
round and professing what is contrary to their
subset iptions ; or, if they acknowledge that
their subscriptions were good, let them not
utter complaints against so great a Council.
But if they do neither the one nor the other,
they are themselves too plainly the sport of
every wind and surge, and are influenced by
opinions, not their own, but of others, and
being such, are as little worthy of deference
now as before, in what they allege. Rather
let them cease to carp at what they understand
7 Hennas, Mand. ix., who is speaking immediately, as S. James,
of wavering in prayer.
8 Thus S. Basil says the same of the Grecian Sects, " We have
not the task ol refuting their tenets, for they suffice for the over-
throw of each other." Hexaem. i. 2. vid. also Theod. Grac.
Affect, i. p. 707. &:c. August. Civ. Dei, xviii. 41. and Vincentius's
celebrated Commonitorium/<u.;>m.
9 1 John ii. 7. 'o I Tim. iii. 8. » Gal. i. 8, 9.
not ; lest so be that not knowing to dis-
criminate, they simply call evil good and
good evil, and think that bitter is sweet and
sweet is bitter. Doubtless, they desire that
doctrines which have been judged wrong and
have been reprobated should gain the ascend-
ancy, and they make violent efforts to prejudice
what was rightly defined. Nor should there
be any reason on our part for any further
explanation, or answer to their excuses, neither
on theirs for further resistance, but for an
acquiescence in what the leaders of their
heresy subscribed; for though the subsequent
change of Eusebius and his fellows was sus-
picious and immoral, their subscription, when
they had the opportunity of at least some
little defence of themselves, is a certain proof
of the irreligion of their doctrine. For they
would not have subscribed previously had
they not condemned the heresy, nor would
they have condemned it, had they not been
encompassed with difficulty and shame ; so
that to change back again is a proof of their
contentious zeal for irreligion. I'hese men
also ought therefore, as I have said, to keep
quiet ; but since from an extraordinary want
of modesty, they hope perhaps to be able
to advocate this diabolical^ irreligion better
than the others, therefore, though in my
former letter written to thee, I have already
argued at length against them, notwithstand-
ing, come let us now also examine them, in
each of their separate statements, as their pre-
decessors ; for now not less than then their
heresy shall be shewn to have no soundness
in it, but to be from evil spirits.
CHAPTER III.
Two senses of the word Son, i, adoptive; 2. es
sential ; attempts of Ariafis to find a third
meaning between these ; e.g. that our Lord
only was created immediately by God {As-
terius's viezv), or that our Lord alone partakes
the Father. The second and true sense ; God
begets as He makes, really; though His
creation and generation are not like man's ;
His generation independent of time ; genera-
tion implies an internal, a?id therefore an
eternal, act in God; explanation of Frov.
viii. 22.
6. They say then what the others held and
dared to maintain before them ; " Not always
3 This is Athan.'s deliberate judgment, vid. de Sent. Dion, fin.,
ib. § 24. he speaks of Arius's "hatred of the truth." Again,
"though the diabolical men rave" Orat. iii. § 8. "iriends
of the devil, and his spirits," Ad Ep. ^g. 5. Another reason
of his so accounting them, was their atrocious cruelty to-
wards Catholics; this leads him elsewhere to break out: "O
new heresy, that has put on the whole devil in irreligious doctrine
and conduct!" Hist. Arian. § 66, also Alexander, 'diabolical,'
ap Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 731. 'satanical,' ibid. p. 741. vid. aUo
Socr. i. 9. p. 30 fin. Hilar, contr. Const. 17.
154
DE DECRETIS, OR
Father, not always Son; for the Son was not be-
fore His generation, but, as others, came to be
from nothing ; and in consequence God was
not always Father of the Son ; but, when the
Son came to be and was created, then was
God called His Father. For the Word is a
creature and a work, and foreign and unlike the
Father in essence ; and the Son is neither
by nature the Father's true Word, nor His
only and true Wisdom ; but being a creature
and one of the works, He is improperlys
called Word and Wisdom ; for by the Word
which is in God was He made, as were all
things. Wherefore the Son is not true God'*."
Now it may serve to make them understand
what they are saying, to ask them first this,
what in fact a son is, and of what is that name
significants. In truth, Divine Scripture ac-
quaints us with a double sense of this word : —
one which Moses sets before us in the Law,
' When ye shall hearken to the voice of the
Lord thy God, to keep all His commandments
which I command thee this day, to do that
which is right in the eyes of the Lord thy God,
ye are children of the Lord your God'^;'
as also in the Gospel, John says, * But as
many as received Him, to them gave He
power to become the sons of God?:' — and
the other sense, that in which Isaac is son of
Abraham, and Jacob of Isaac, and the Patri-
archs of Jacob. Now in which of these two
senses do they understand the Son of God
that they relate such fables as the foregoing?
for I feel sure they will issue in the same
irreligion with Eusebius and his fellows.
If in the first, which belongs to those who
gain the name by grace from moral improve-
ment, and receive power to become sons of
3 KaTaxpr](TTtKit>i. This word is noticed and protested against
by Alexander, Socr. Hist. i. 6. p. n a. by tlie Semiarians at
Ancyra, Epiph. Htsr. 73. n. 5. by Basil, conir. Eunom. ii. 23. and
by Cyril, Dial. ii. t. v. i. pp. 432, 3.
4 Vid. Ep. jE^. 12. Orat. 1. § 5. 6. de Synod. 15, 16.
Athanas. seems to have had in mind Socr. i. 6. p. 10, 11, or
the like.
5 Vid. Orat. i. § 38. The controversy turned on the question
what was meant by the word 'Son.' Though the Arians would
not allow with the Catholics that our Lord was Son by nature,
and maintained that the word implied a beginning of existeiice,
they did not dare to say that He was Son merely in the sense
in which we are sons, though, as Athan. contends, they neces-
sarily tended to this conclusion, directly they receded from the
Catholic view. Thus Arius said that He was a creature, ' but
not as one of the creatures.' Orat. ii. § 19. Valens at
Ariminum said the same, Jerom. adv. Lucifer. 18. Hilary says,
that not daring directly to deny that He was God, the Arians
merely asked 'whether He was a Son.' de Trin. viii. 3. Atha-
nasius remarks upon this reluctance to speak out, challenging them
to present ' the h'resy naked,' de Sent. Dionys. 2. init. ' No one,"
he says elsewhere, ' puts a light under a bushel ; let them shew
the world their heresy naked.' Ep. /Eg. 18.' vid. ibid. 10. In
like manner, Basil says that (though Arius was really like Euno-
mius, in faith, coiitr. Eunom. i. 4) Aetius his master was the
first to teach openly (ij>a.vi pios) , that the Father's substance was
unlike, ivofioios, the Son's, ibid. i. i. Epiphanius Har. 76. p. 949.
seems to say that the elder Arians held the divine generation in
a sense inwhich Aetius did not, that is, they were not so consistent
and definite as he. Athan. goes on to mention some of the at-
tempts of the Arians to find some theory short of orthodo.\y, yet
short of that extreme heresy, on the other hand, which they felt
ashamed to avow. •
* Deut. xiii. 18 ; xiv. i. 7 John. i. la.
God (for this is what their predecessors said),
then He would seem to differ from us in
nothing ; no, nor would He be Only-begotten,
as having obtained the title of Son as others
from His virtue. For granting what they say,
that, whereas His qualifications were fore-
known 8, He therefore received grace from the
first, the name, and the glory of the name,
from His very first beginning, still there will
be no difference between Him and those who
receive the name after their actions, so long
as this is the ground on which He as others
has the character of son. For Adam too,
though he received grace from the first,
and upon his creation was at once placed
in paradise, differed in no respect either from
Enoch, who was translated thither after some
time from his birth on his pleasing God, or
from the Apostle, who likewise was caught up
to Paradise after his actions ; nay, not from
him who once was a thief, who on the ground
of his confession, received a promise that he
should be forthwith in paradise.
7. When thus pressed, they will perhaps
make an answer which has brought them
into trouble many times already ; " We con-
sider that the Son has this prerogative
over others, and therefore is called Only-
begotten, because He alone was brought
to be by God alone, and all other things
were created by God through the Son \"
Now I wonder who it was ^ that suggested
to you so futile and novel an idea as that the
Father alone wrought with His own hand the
Son alone, and that all other things were
brought to be by the Son as by an under-
worked If for the toil's sake God was content
with making the Son only, instead of making
all things at once, this is an irreligious thought,
especially in those who know the words of
Esaias, ' The everlasting God, the Lord, the
Creator of the ends of the earth, hungereth
not, neither is weary ; there is no searching of
His understandings.' Rather it is He who
gives strength to the hungry, and through His
^Vord refreshes the labouring'*. Again, it is
irreligious to suppose that He disdained, as if
a humble task, to form the creatures Himself
which came after the Son ; for there is no pride
in that God, who goes down with Jacob into
Egypt, and for Abraham's sake corrects Abim-
8 Theod. Hist. i. 3.
' This is celebrated as an explanation of the Anomoeans. vid.
Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 20, 21. though Athan. speaks of it as
belonging to the elder Arians. vid. Socr. Hist. i. 6.
2 i.e. what is your authority ? is it not a novel, and therefore
a wrong doctrine? vid. infr. § 13. ad Serap. i. 3. Also Orat. i.
§ 8. ' Who ever heard such doctrine ? or whence or front whom
did they hear it? who, when they were utider catechising, spoke
thus to them ? If they themselves confess that they now hear it for
the first time, they must grant that their heresy is alien, and not
from the Fathers.' vid. ii. § 34. and Socr. i. 6. p. 11 c
3 Is. xl. 28. 4 lb. 29.
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
155
elek because of Sara, and speaks face to face
with Moses, himself a man, and descends upon
Mount Sinai, and by His secret grace fights
for the people against Amalek. However, you
are false even in this assertion, for ' H^ made
us, and not we ourselves s.' He it is who
through His Word made all things small and
great, and we may not divide the creation, and
says this is the Father's, and this the Son's, but
they are of one God, who uses His proper
Word as a Hand ^, and in Him does all things.
This God Himself shews us, when He says, 'All
these things hath My Hand made 7;' while
Paul taught us as he had learned ^, that ' There
is one God, from whom all things ; and one
Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things 9.'
Thus He, always as now, speaks to the sun
and it rises, and commands the clouds and it
rains upon one place ; and where it does not
rain, it is dried up. And He bids the earth
yield her fruits, and fashions Jeremias '° in the
womb. But if He now does all this, assuredly
at the beginning also He did not disdain to
make all things Himbclf through the Word ;
for these are but parts of the whole.
8. But let us suppose that the other crea-
tures could not endure to be wrought by the
absolute Hand of the Unoriginate ', and there-
fore the Son alone was brought into being by
the Father alone, and other things by the Son
as an underworker and assistant, for this is
what Asterius the sacrificer^ has written, and
Arius has transcribed 3 and bequeathed to his
own friends, and from that time they use this
form of words, broken reed as it is, being
ignorant, the bewildered men, how brittle it is.
For if it was impossible for things originate to
bear the hand of God, and you hold the Son to
be one of their number, how was He too equal
to this formation by God alone ? and if a Me-
diator became necessary that things originate
might come to be, and you hold the Son to be
originated, then must there have been some
medium before Him, for His creation; and
that Mediator himself again being a creature,
it follows that he too needed another Medi-
ator for his own constitution. And though we
were to devise another, we must first devise his
Mediator, so that we shall never come to an
5 Ps. c. 3.
6 Vid. infr. § 17. Orat. ii. §31. 71. Irenasus calls the Son and
Holy Spirit the Hands of God. /far. 'w.prirf. vid also Hilar.
de Trin. vii. 22. This image is in contrast to that of instrutnent,
op-^a-vov, which the Arians would use of the Son, vid Socr. i. 6.
p. II, as implying He was external to God, whereas the word
Hand\m^\\^& His consubstantiality with the Father.
7 Is. Ixvi. 2.
8 ^aSu>v iSiSaiTKev, implying the traditional nature of the teach-
ing. And so S. Paul himself, i Cor. xv. 3, vid. for an illustration,
supr. § 5. init. also note 2.
9 I Cor. viii. 6. ^° Jer. i. 5. ' Orai. ii. § 24. fin.
« Vid. infr. 20. Orai. i. § 31. ii. §§ 24, 28. 37. 40. iii. §§ 8.
60. <ie Synod §§ 18. 19. [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) a.]
3 Vid. also infr. § 20. tie Synod. % 17.
end. And thus a Mediator being ever in
request, never will the creation be constituted,
because nothing originate, as you say, can bear
the absolute hand of the Unoriginate *. And
if, on your perceiving the extravagance of this,
you begin to say that the Son, though a crea-
ture, was made capable of being made by the
Unoriginate, then it follows that other things
also, though originated, are capable of being
wrought immediately by the Unoriginate ; for
the Son too is but a creature in your judg-
ment, as all of them. And accordingly -the
origination of the Word is superfluous, accord-
ing to your irreligious and futile imagination^
God being sufficient for the immediate forma-
tion of all things, and all things originate being-
capable of sustaining His absolute hand.
These irreligious men then having so little
mind amid their madness, let us see whether
this particular sophism be not even more irra-
tional than the others. Adam was created
alone by God alone through the Word ; yet
no one would say that Adam had any pre-
rogative over other men, or was different
from those who came after him, granting
that he alone was made and fashioned by
God alone, and we all spring from Adam,
and consist according to succession of the
race, so long as he was fashioned from the
earth as others, and at first not being, after-
wards came to be. •
9. But though we were to allow some
prerogative to the Protoplast as having been
deemed worthy of the hand of God, still it must
be one of honour not of nature. For he
came of the earth, as other men ; and the
hand which then fashioned Adam, is also both
now and ever fashioning and giving entire con-
sistence to those who come after him. And
God Himself declares this to Jeremiah, as
I said before ; ' Before I formed thee in the
womb, I knew thee s ; ' and so He says of all,
' All those things hath My hand made ^ ;*
and again by Isaiah, ' Thus saith the Lord, thy
redeemer, and He that formed thee from the
womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things ;.
that stretcheth forth the heavens alone ; that
spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself?.' And
David, knowing this, says in the Psalm, ' Thy
hands have made me and fashioned me ^ ; ' and
he who says in Isaiah, ' Thus saith the Lord
who formed me from the womb to be His
servant V signifies the same. Therefore, in
respect of nature, he differs nothing from us
though he precede us in time, so long as we all
consist and are created by the same hand. If
then these be your thoughts, O Arians, about
4 Vid. infr. 8 »A- Orat. i. § 15. fin. iL | ag. Epiph. Har. 76.
p. 051. 5 Jer. i. 5. * Is. Ixvi. a.
7 lb. xliv. 2/. 8 Ps. cxix. 73. 5 Is. xhx. 5.
ISO
DE DECRETIS, OR
the Son of God too, that thus He subsists and
came to be, then in your judgment He will
differ nothing on the score of nature from
others, so long as He too was not, and came
to be, and the name was by grace united to
Him in His creation for His virtue's sake.
For He Himself is one of those, from what
you say, of whom the Spirit says in the Psalms,
' He spake the word, and they were made ;
He commanded, and they were created ^' If
so, who was it by whom God gave com-
mand* for the Son's creation? for a Word
there must be by whom God gave command,
and in whom the works are created ; but you
have no other to shew than the Word you deny,
unless indeed you should devise again some
new notion.
" Yes," they will say, " we have another ; "
(which indeed I formerly heard Eusebius and
his fellows use), " on this score do we consider
that the Son of God has a prerogative over
others, and is called Only-begotten, because
He alone partakes the Father, and all other
things partake the Son." Thus they weary
themselves in changing and in varying their
phrases like colours 3; however, this shall not
save them from an exposure, as men that are
of the earth, speaking vainly, and wallowing in
their own conceits as in mire.
ro. For if He were called God's Son, and
we the Son's sons, their fiction were plausible ;
but if we too are said to be sons of that God,
of whom He is Son, then we too partake the
Father*, who says, 'I have begotten and ex-
alted children 5.' For if we did not partake
Him, He had not said, *I have begotten;' but
if He Himself begat us, no other than He
is our Father^ And, as before, it matters not,
whether the Son has something more and was
made first, but we something less, and were
made afterwards, as long as we all partake,
and are called sons, of the same Father?. For
» Ps. cxlviii. 5 (LXX).
= In like manner, ' Men were made through the Word, when
the Father Himself willed.\ Orat. i. 63. 'The Word forms
matter as injoined by, and ministering to, God.' jrpocTTaTTo/aei'O!
K.aX iTTovpyi}!/. ibid. ii. § 22. contr. Gent. 46. vid. note on Orat. ii. 32.
3 ad Scrap, i. 3.
4 His argument is, that if the Son but partook the Father in
the sense in which we partake the Son, then the Son would not
impart to us the Father, but Himself, and would be a separating
as well as uniting medium between the Father and us ; whereas
He brings us so near to the Father, that we are the Father's child-
ren, not His, and therefore He must be Himself one with the
Father, or the Father must be in Him w<th an incomprehensible
completeness, vid. de Synod. § 51. contr. Gent. 46. fin. Hence
S. Augustin says, ' As the Father has life in Himself, so hath He
fiven also to the Son to have life in Himself, not by participating,
ut in Himself. For we have not life in oureelves, but in our God.
But that Father, who has life in Himself, begat a Son such, as
to have life in Himself, not to become partaker of life, but to
be Himself life ; and 0/ that life to make us partakers.' Sertn.
127. de Verb. Evang. 9.
5 Is. i. 2.
* ' To say God is wholly partaken, is the same as saying that
God begets.' Orat. i. § 16. And in like manner, our inferior par-
ticipation involves such sonship as is vouchsafed to us.
7 And so in Orat. ii. \ 19 — 22. ' Though the Son surpassed
other things on a comparison, yet He were equally a creature with
the more or less does not indicate a different
nature ; but attaches to each according to the
practice of virtue ; and one is placed over ten
cities, another over five ; and some sit on
twelve , thrones judging the twelve tribes of
Israel ; and others hear the words, ' Come, ye
blessed of My Father,' and, ' Well done, good
and faithful servant^.' With such ideas, how-
ever, no wonder they imagine that of such
a Son God was not always Father, and such
a Son was not always in being, but was genera-
ted from nothing as a creature, and was not
before His generation ; for such an one is
other than the True Son of God.
But to persist in such teaching does not
consist with piety9, for it is rather the tone of
thought of Sadducees and the Sarnosatene^° ; it
remains then to say that the Son of God
is so called according to the other sense, in
which Isaac was son of Abraham ; for what ib
naturally begotten from any one and does not
accrue to him from without, that in the nature
of things is a son, and that is what the name
implies'. Is then the Son's generation one of
human affection ? (for this perhaps, as their
predecessors^, they too will be ready to object
in their ignorance ;) — in no wise ; for God
is not as man, nor men as God. Men were
created of matter, and that passible ; but God
is immaterial and incorporeal. And if so be
the same terms are used of God and man
in divine Scripture, yet the clear-sighted, as
Paul enjoins, will study it, and thereby dis-
criminate, and dispose of what is written ac-
cording to the nature of each subject, and
avoid any confusion of sense, so as neither
to conceive of the things of God in a human
way, nor to ascribe the things of man to Gods.
them; for even in those things which are of a created nature, we
may find some things surpassing others. Star, for instance, differs
from star in glory, yet it does not fullov. t'lat some are sovereign,
and others serve, &c.' ii. $ 20. And so Gre^^ory Nyssen contr.
Eunom. iii. p. 132 D. Epiph. Hcer. 76. p. 970.
8 Matt. XXV. 21, 23, 34.
9 i.e. since it is impossible they can persist in evasions so
manifest as these, nothing is left but to take the other sense of
the word.
10 Paul of Samosata [see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) a.]
I The force lies in the word <f)uaei., ' naturally,' which the
Council expressed still more definitely by ' essence.' Thus Cyril
says, 'the term ''Son" denotes the essential origin from the
Father.' Bin/. 5. p. 573. And Gregory Nyssen, ' the title '' Son"
does nut simply express the being from another' vid. inlra.§ 19.),
but relationship according to nature, contr. Eunoin. ii. p. 91.
Again S. Basil says, that Father is 'a term of relationship,"
oiKei<uae<D5. contr. Eimovi. ii. 24. init. And hence he remarks,
that we too are properly, Kvpiui^, sons of God, as becoming related
to Him through works of the Spirit, ii. 23. So also Cyril, loc.
cit. Elsewhere S. Basil defines father ' one who gives to another
the origin of being according to a nature like his own ; ' and a son
'one who possesses the origin of being Irom another by genera-
tion,' contr Eun. ii. 22. On the other hand, the Arians at the
first denied that ' by nature there was any Son of God.' Theod.
H. E. i. 3. p. 732. . , . ,. , ^
* vid. Eusebius, in his Letter, supr. p. 73 sq.: also Socr.
Hist, i 8. Epiphan. A^<»r. 69. n 8 and 15.
3 One of the characteristic points in Athanasius is his constant
attention to the sense of doctrine, or the tneaning of writers, in
preference to the words used. Thus he scarcely uses the symbol
6/u.oovcriOf, one in substance, throughout his Orations, and in
the de Synod, acknowledges the Semiarians as brethren. Hence
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
157
For this were to mix wine with water^, and to
place upon the altar strange fire with that
which is divine.
II. For God creates, and to create is also
ascribed to men ; and God has being, and
men are said to be, having received from God
this gift also. Yet does God create as men do?
or is His being as man's being? Perish the
thought; we understand the terms in one
sense of God, and in another of men. For
God creates, in that He calls what is not into
being, needing nothing thereunto; but men
work some existing material, first praying, and
so gaining the wit to make, from that God
who has framed all things by His proper Word.
And again men, being incapable of self-exist-
ence, are enclosed in place, and consist in the
Word of God ; but God is self-existent, en-
closing all things, and enclosed by none ;
within all according to His own goodness and
power, yet without all in His proper natures.
As then men create not as God creates, as
their being is not such as God's being, so
men's generation is in one way, and the So« is
from the Father in another^. For the ofi"spring
of men are portions of their fathers, since the
very nature of bodies is not uncompounded,
infr. § 18. he says, that orthodox doctrine ' is revered by all
though expressed in strange language, provided the speaker
me.ins religiously, and wishes to convey by it a religious sense."
vid. also § 21. He says, that Catholics are able to ' speak freely,'
or to expatiate, Trappijata^fieSa, ' out of Divine Scripture.' Orat. i.
§ 9. vid. de Sent. Dionys. § 20. init. Again : ' The devil spoke
from Scripture, but was silenced by the Saviour ; Paul spoke from
profane writers, yet, being a saint, he has a religious meaning.'
de Syn. § 39- also ad Ep, jF.g. 8- Again, speaking of the apparent
contrariety between two Councils, ' It were unseemly to make the
one conflict with the other, for ail their members are fathers ;
and it were profane to decide that these spoke well and those ill,
for all of them have slept in Christ. § 43. also § 47. Again :
' Not the phrase, but the meaning and the religious life, is the
recommendation of the faithful.' ad Ep. ^g. § 9.
4 vid. Orat. iii. § 35, and Isa. i. 22.
5 Vid. also Incarn. § \n. This contrast is not commonly found
in ecclesiastical writers, who are used to say that God is present
everj'where, in substance as well as by energy or power. S. Cle-
ment, however, expresses himself still more strongly in the same
way, ' In substance far off (for how can the originate come close
to the Unoriginale?), but most close in power, in which the universe
is embosomed.' Strain. 2. circ. init. but the parenthesis explains
his meaning. Vid. Cyril. Thesaur, 6. p. 44. The common doc-
trine of the Fathers is, that God is present everywhere m substance.
Vid. Petav. de Deo, iii. 8. and 9. It may be remarked, that
S. Clement continues ' neither enclosing nor enclosed.'
6 In Almighty God is the perfection and first pattern of what
is seen in shadow in human nature, according to the imperfection
of the subject matter ; and this remark applies, as to creation,
so to generation. Athanasius is led to state this more distinctly
in another connection in Orat. i. § 21. fin. 'It belongs to the
Godhead alone, that the Father is properly (KvpCu^) Father, and
tlie Son properly {KvpCui) Son ; and in 'Them and Them only
does it hold vhat the Father is ever Father, and the Son ever
Son.' Accordingly he proceeds, shortly afterwards, as in the text,
to argue, ' For God does not make 7nen His pattern, but rather
we men, for that God is properly and alone truly Father of
His own Son, are also called fathers of our own children, for
"of Him is every father-hood in heaven and on earth named,'"
§ 23. The Semiarians at Ancyra quote the same text for the
same doctrine. Epiphan. Hcer. 73. s- As do Cyril in Joan. i.
p. 24. Tliesaur, 32. p. 281. and Damascene de Fid. Orth. i.
8. The same parallel, as existing between creation and gene-
ration, is insisted on by Isidor. Pel. Ep. iii. 355. Basil contr.
Eun. iv. p. 280 A., Cyril Thesaur. 6. p. 43. Epiph. Hcer. 69. 36.
and Gregor. Naz. Orat. 20. 9. who observes that God creates with
a word, Ps. cxlviii. 5, which evidently transcends human creations.
Theodorus Abucara, with the same object, draws out the parallel
of life, ^ciiT), as Athan. that of being, eZvat. Opusc. iii. p. 430 —
423.
but in a state of flux?, and composed of parts ;
and men lose their substance in begetting, and
again they gain substance from the accession
of food. And on this account men in their
time become fathers of many children; but
God, being without parts, is Father of the Son
without partition or passion ; for there is
neither effluence^ of the Immaterial, nor in-
flux from without, as among men ; and
being uncompounded in nature, He is Father
of One Only Son. This is why He is Only-
begotten, and alone in the Father's bosom,
and alone is acknowledged by the Father to
be from Him, saying, 'This is My beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased 9.' And He
too is the Father's Word, from which may be
understood the impassible and impartitive nature
of the Father, in that not even a human word
is begotten with passion or partition, much
less the Word of God\ Wherefore also He
sits, as Word, at the Father's right hand ; for
where the Father is, there also is His Word ;
but we, as His works, stand in judgment before
Him ; and, while He is adored, because He is
Son of the adorable Father, we adore, con-
fessing Him Lord and God, because we are
creatures and other than He.
12. The case being thus, let who will among
them consider the matter, so that one may
abash them by the following question ; Is it
right to say that what is God's offspring and
proper to Him is out of nothing? or is it
reasonable in the very idea, that what is from
God has accrued to Him, that a man should
dare to say that the Son is not always ? For
in this again the generation of the Son exceeds
and transcends the thoughts of man, that we
become fathers of our own children in time,
since we ourselves first were not and then came
into being ; but God, in that He ever is, is
ever Father of the Son^ And the origination
7 Vid. de Synod. § 51. Orat. i. § 15, i6. pevo-Trj. vid. Orat. L
§ 28. Bas. in Eun. ii. 23. pvcriv. Bas. in Eun. ii. 6. Greg. Na2.
Orat. 28, 22. Vid. contr. Gentes, §§ 41, 42 ; where Athan. without
reference to the Arian controversy, draws out the contrast between
the Godhead and human nature.
8 S. Cyril, Dial. iv. init. p. 505 E. speaks of the SpuAAovfie'wj
aTfopporj, and disclaims it, Thesaur. 6. p. 43. Athan. disclaims it,
^xpos. § I. Orat. i. § 21. So does Alexander, ap. Theod. Hist, i
3. p. 743. On the other hand, Athanasius quotes it in a passage
which he adduces from Theognostus, in/r. § 25. and from Diony-
sius, de Sent. D. § 23. and Origen uses it, Periarchon, i. 3. It
is derived from Wisd. vii. 25. 9 Matt. iii. 17.
• The title ' Word ' implies the ineffable mode of the Son's
generation, as distinct from material parallels, vid. Gregory Nys-
sen, contr. Eunoin, iii. p. 107. Chrysostom in Joan. Hon. 2. § 4.
Cyril Alex. Thesaur. 5. p. 37. Also it implies that there is but
One Son. vid. infr. § i6. ' As the Origin is one essence, so its
Word and Wisdom is one, essential and subsisting.' Orat. iv.
I. fin.
3 ' Man,' says S. Cyril, ' inasmuch as he had a beginning of
being, also has of necessity a beginning of begetting, as what
is from him is a thing generate, but .... if God's essence tran-
scend time, or origin, or interval, His generation too will transcend
these ; nor does it deprive the Divine Nature of the power of
generating, that it doth not this in time. For other than human
is the manner of divine generation ; and together with God's
existing is His generating implied, and the Son was in Him by
generation, nor did His generation precede His existence, but
He was always, and that by generation.' Thesaur. v. p. 35.
158
DE DECRETIS, OR
of mankind is brought home to us from things
that are parallel ; but, since ' no one knoweth
the Son but the Father, and no one knoweth
the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever
the Son will reveal Him 3,' therefore the sacred
writers to whom the Son has revealed Him,
have given us a certain image from things
visible, sa3'ing, ' Who is the brightness of His
glory, and the Expression of His Person '^;' and
again, ' For with Thee is the well of life, and
in Thy light shall we see lights;' and when
the Word chides Israel, He says, ' Thou hast
forsaken the Fountain of wisdom^ ; ' and this
Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken
Me the Fountain of living waters?.' And mean
indeed and very dim is the illustration^ com-
pared with what we desiderate ; but yet it is
possible from it to understand something above
man's nature, instead of thinking the Son's
generation to be on a level with ours. For
who can even imagine that the radiance of
light ever was not, so that he should dare
to say that the Son was not always, or that
the Son was not before His generation ? or
who is capable of separating the radiance from
the sun, or to conceive of the fountain as ever
void of life, that he should madly say, ' The
Son is from nothing,' who says, ' I am the
life?,' or 'alien to the Father's essence,' who
says, ' He that hath seen Me, hath seen the
Father '°?' for the sacred writers wishing us
thus to understand, have given these illustra-
tions ; and it is unseemly and most irreligious,
when Scripture contains such images, to form
ideas concerning our Lord from others which
are nei ther in Scripture, nor have any religious
bearing.
13. Therefore let them tell us, from what
teacher or by what tradition they derived
these notions concerning the Saviour? "We
have read," they will say, " in the Proverbs,
' The Lord created me a beginning of His ways
unto His works';'" this Eusebius and his
fellows used to insist on% and you write me
word, that the present men also, though over-
thrown and confuted by an abundance of
arguments, still were putting about in every
quarter this passage, and saying that the Son
was one of the creatures, and reckoning Him
3 Matt. xi. 27. 4 Heb. i. 3.
5 Ps. xxxvi. g. 6 Bar. iii. I9.
7 Jer. ii. 13. Vid. infr. passim. All these titles, 'Word,
Wisdom, Light,' &c., serve to guard the title ' Son ' from any
notions of parts or dimensions, e.g. ' He is not composed of parts,
but being impassible and single, He is impassibly and indivisibly
Father of the Sou . . . for . . . the Word and Wisdom is neither
creature, nor part of Him Whose Word He is, nor an offspring
passibly begotten.' Orat. i. § 28.
^ Ad Scrap. 20. 9 John xiv. 6. »> Jb. 9.
» Prov. viii. 22, and cf. Orat. ii. throughout
2 Eusebius of Nicomedia quotes it in his Letter to Paulinus,
ap. Theodor. Hist. i. 5. And Eusebius of Csesarea, Denionstr.
£va>ig, V. I.
with things originated. But they seem to me
to have a wrong understanding of this passage
also ; for it has a rehgious and very orthodox
sense, which had they understood, they would
not have blasphemed the Lord of glory. For
on comparing what has been above stated with
this passage, they will find a great difference
between them 3. For what man of right under-
standing does not perceive, that what are
created and made are external to the maker ;
but the Son, as the foregoing argument has
shewn, exists not externally, but from the
Father who begat Him? for man too both
builds a house and begets a son, and no one
would reverse things, and say that the house
or the ship were begotten by the builder*, but
the son was created and made by him ; nor
again that the house was an image of the
maker, but the son unlike him who begat him ;
but rather he will confess that the son is an
image of the father, but the house a work
of art, unless his mind be disordered, and he
beside himself. Plainly, divine Scripture,
which knows better than any the nature of
everything, says through Moses, of the crea-
tures, ' In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earths;' but of the Son it
introduces not another, but the Father Himself
saying, ' I have begotten Thee from the womb
before the morning star^;' and again, 'Thou
art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee ?.'
And the Lord says of Himself in the Proverbs,
' Before all the hills He begets me^;' and con-
cerning things originated and created John
speaks, ' All things were made by Him9 ; ' but
preaching of the Lord, he says, ' The Only-be-
gotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father,
He declared Him'°.' If then son, therefore
not creature ; if creature, not son ; for great is
the difference between them, and son and
creature cannot be the same, unless His essence
be considered to be at once from God, and
external to God.
14. ' Has then the passage no meaning?' for
this, like a swarm of gnats, they are droning
about us '. No surely, it is not without mean-
ing, but has a very apposite one ; for it is true
to say that the Son was created too, but this
took place when He became man ; for creation
3 i.e. ' Granting that the primd facie impression of this text is
in favour of our Lord's being a creature, yet so many arguments
have been already brought, and may be added, against His
creation, that we must interpret this text by them. It cannot
mean that our Lord was simply created, because y/a have already
shewn that He is not external to His Father.'
4 Scrap. 2, 6. Sent. Dion. 3d. 5 Gen. i. i.
6 Ps. ex. 3. 7 Ps. ii. 7. 8 Prov. viii. 25.
9 John i. 3. »o lb. 18.
I Trepi.^oixpova-iv. So in act A/ros- 5. init. And Sent. D. \ 19.
irepUpXOvrai. 7repij3o^ij8ouvT6?. And Gregory Nyssen. contr. Eun.
viii. p. 234 C. 0)5 a.v tov? aTretpou? rat? irKcTtiiViKais KoXKi^iaviaL
7repii3o^^7J<rete>'. vid. also TTepUpxovran. i>% ot KavOapoi., Orat
iii. fin.
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
159
belongs to man. And any one may find this
sense duly given in the divine oracles, who,
instead of accounting their study a secondary
matter, investigates the time and characters %
and the object, and thus studies and ponders
what he reads. Now as to the season spoken
of, he will find for certain that, whereas the
Lord always is, at length in fulness of the ages
He became man ; and whereas He is Son of
God, He became Son of man also. And as to
the object he will understand, that, wishing to
annul our death, He took on Himself a body
from the Virgin Mary; that by offering this
unto the Father a sacrifice for all, He might
deliver us all, who by fear of death were all
our life through subject to bondage 3. And as
to the character, it is indeed the Saviour's, but
is said of Him when He took a body and said,
' The Lord created me a beginning of His
ways unto His works'*.' For as it properly
belongs to God's Son to be everlasting, and in
the Father's bosom, so on His becoming man,
the words befitted Him, ' The Lord created
me.' For then it is said of Him, as also
that He hungered, and thirsted, and asked
where Lazarus lay, and suffered, and rose
again s. And as, when we hear of Him
as Lord and God and true Light, we under-
stand Him as being from the Father, so on
hearing, 'The Lord created,' and 'Servant,' and
* He suffered,' we shall justly ascribe this, not to
the Godhead, for it is irrelevant, but we must
interpret it by that flesh which He bore for
our sakes : for to it these things are proper,
and this flesh was none other's than the
Word's. And if we wish to know the object
attained by this, we shall find it to be as
follows : that the Word was made flesh in
order to off"er up this body for all, and that we,
partaking of His Spirit, might be deified^,
a gift which we could not otherwise have
gained than by His clothing Himself in our
created body 7, for hence we derive our name
of " men of God " and " men in Christ." But
as we, by receiving the Spirit, do not lose our
own proper substance, so the Lord, when
made man for us, and bearing a body, was no
less God ; for He was not lessened by the
envelopment of the body, but rather deified it
and rendered it immortal ^.
s irpoirioTro. vid. Oral. i. § 54. ii. § 8 Sent. D. 4. not persons,
but characters ; which must also be considered the meaning of the
word, contr. Apoll. ii. 2. and xo ; though it there approximates
(even in phrase, ovk kv Siaipecrei npoduiTTtov) to its ecclesiastical
use, which seems to have been later. Yet persona occurs in Ter-
tuU. in Prax. 27 ; it may be questioned, however, whether in any
genuine Greek treatise till the Apollinarians.
3 ileb. ii. 15. 4 Prov. viii. aa.
5 Sent. D. 9. Orat. 3, §§ 26—41.
6 [See de Incar. § 54. 3, and note.]
7 Orat. 2, I JO.
8 Cf. Orat. ii. 6. [See also de Incar. § 17.]
CHAPTER IV.
Proof of the Catholic Sense of the
WORD Son.
Power, Word or Reason., and Wisdom, the
names of the Son, imply eternity; as well as
the Father's title of Fountain. The Arians
reply that these do not fv-mally belong to the
essence of the Son, but are ?uinies given Him ;
that God has many words, powers, &*c. Why
there is but one Son and Word, 6r*c. All the
titles of the Son coincide i7i Hitn.
15. This then is quite enough to expose
the infamy of the Arian heresy; for, as the
Lord has granted, out of their own words is
irreligion brought home to them'. But come
now and let us on our part act on the offensive,
and call on them for an answer; for now is fair
time, when their own ground has failed them,
to question them on ours ; perhaps it may
abash the perverse, and disclose to them
whence they have fallen. We have learned
from divine Scripture, that the Son of God, as
was said above, is the very Word and Wisdom
of the Father. For the Apostle says, ' Christ
the power of God and the Wisdom of God ^ ; '
and John after saying, ' And the Word was
made flesh,' at once adds, 'And we saw
His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of
the Father, full of grace and truths,' so that,
the Word being the Only-begotten Son, in
this Word and in Wisdom heaven and earth
and all that is therein were made. And of
this Wisdom that God is Fountain we have
learned from^ Baruch, by Israel's being charged
with having forsaken the Fountain of Wisdom.
If then they deny Scripture, they are at once
aliens to their name, and may fitly be called of
all men atheists s, and Christ's enemies, for
they have brought upon themselves these names.
But if they agree with us that the sayings of
Scripture are divinely inspired, let them dare
to say openly what they think in secret that
God was once wordless and wisdomless^; and
1 The main argument of the Arians was that our Lord was
a Son, and therefore was not eternal, but of a substance which
had a beginning. [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) a.] Accordingly Atha-
nasius says, ' Having argued with them as to the meaning of their
own selected term "Son," let us go on to others, which on the very
face make for us, such as Word, Wisdom, &c.*
2 I Cor. i. 24.
3 John i. 14.
4 Vid. supr. § 12. S Vid. supr. § i. note a, bis.
6 aAoyos, a(ro0os. Vid. infr., §26. This is a frequent argument
in the controvtrsy, viz. that to deprive the Father of His Soa
or substantial Word (Aoyos), is as great a sacrilege as_ to deny
His Reason, A.6yos, from which the Son receives His name.
TXw&Orat. i. § 14. fin. Athan. says, 'imputing to God's nature
an absence of His Word (aAoyiai» or irrationality), ihey are
most irreligious.' Vid. § 19. fin. 24. Elsewhere, he says, 'Is
a man not mad himself, who even entertains the thought that God
is word-less and wisdom-less? for such illistratious and su^ch
images Scripture hath proposed, that, considerng the inability
of human nature to comprehend concerning God, we might even
from these, however poorly and dimly, discern as far as is attain-
able.' Orat. ii 32, vid also iii. 63. iv. i.-. Serap. ii. 2.
i6o
DE DECRETIS, OR
let them in their madness 7 say, 'There was
once when He was not,' and, 'before His
generation, Christ was not^ ; ' and again let
them declare that the Fountain begat not
Wisdom from itself, but acquired it from
without, till they have the daring to say, * The
Son came of nothing ; ' whence it will follow
that there is no longer a Fountain, but a
sort of pool, as if receiving water from without,
and usurping the name of Fountain9.
1 6. How full of irreligion this is, I consider
none can doubt who has ever so little under-
standing. But since they mutter something
about Word and Wisdom being only names of
the Son'°, we must ask then, If these are only
names of the Son, He must be something else
beside them. And if He is higher than the
names, it is not lawful from the lesser to denote
the higher ; but if He be less than the names,
yet He surely must have in Him the principle
of this more honourable appellation ] and this
implies his advance, which is an irreligion
equal to anything that has gone before. For
He who is in the Father, and in whom also
the Father is, who says, ' I and the Father are
one',' whom he that hath seen, hath seen
the Father, to say that He has been exalted ^
by anything external, is the extreme of mad-
ness. However, when they are beaten hence,
and like Eusebius and his fellows, are in
these great straits, then they have this re-
maining plea, which Arius too in ballads,
and in his own Thalia 3, fabled, as a new
difiiculty: 'Many words speaketh God;
which then of these are we to call Son
and Word, Only-begotten of the Father + ? '
7 Vid. above, § i, note 6.
8 These were among the original positions of the Arians ; for
the former, see above, note i ; the latter is one of those specified
in the Nicene Anathema.
9 And so Trijyi) ^ripa. Scrap, ii. 2. Orat. i. § 14 fin. also ii.
§ 2, where Athanasius speaks as if those who deny that Almighty
God is Father, cannot really believe in Him as a Creator. If the
divine substance be not fruitful (xapTro-yoi'os), but barren, as they
say, as a light which enlightens not, and a dry fountain, are they
not ashamed to maintain that He possesses the creative energy ? '
Vid. iilso injyi) ^eorriTos, Pseudo-Djon. Div. Notn. C. 2. Jrr|yr) ex
Tnjyrjs, of the Son, Epiphan. Ancor. 19. And Cyril, 'If thou take
from God His being Father, thou wilt deny the generative power
(/capTToydi'ov) of the divine nature, so that It no longer \% j>erfect.
This then is a token of its perfection, and the Son who went forth
from Him apart from time, is a pledge (cr<^payts) to the Father
that He is perfect.' Thesaur. p. 37.
^° Arius said, as the Eunomians after him, that the Son was
not really, but only called, Word and Wisdom, which were simply
attributes of God, and the prototypes of the Son. Vid. Socr. i. 6.
Theod. H.E. i. 3, and in/r. Orat. ii. 37, 38.
» John X. 30. ^ peKTiova-Oau. 3 Vid. de Syn. § 15.
* As the Arians took the title Son in that part of its earthly
sense in which it did not apply to our Lord, so they misin-
terpreted the title Word aLso ; which denoted the Son's imma-
tenality and indivisible presence in the Father, but did not express
His perfecttion. Vid. Orat. ii. § 34—36. contr. Cent. 41. ad
Ep. yEg-. 16. Epiph. Har. 65. 3. Nyss. in Eun. xii. p. 349.
Origen (in a passage, however, of questionable doctrine), says,
' As there are gods many, but to us one God the Father, and many
lords, but to us one Lord Jesus Christ, so there are many words,
but we pray that in us may exist the Word that was in the begin-
ning, with God, and was God.' In Joan. torn. ii. 3. ' Many things,
it isacknowledged, does the Father speak to the Son,' say the
Semiarians at Ancyra, ' but the words which God speaks to the
Son, are not sons. They are not substances of God, but vocal
Insensate, and anything but Christians'!
for first, on using such language about
God, they conceive of Him almost as a man,
speaking and reversing His first words by His
second, just as if one Word from God were
not sufficient for the framing of all things
at the Father's will, and for His providential
care of all. For His speaking many words
would argue a feebleness in them all, each
needing the service of the other. But that
Ciod should have one Word, which is the true
doctrine, both shews the power of God, and
the perfection of the Word that is from Him,
and the religious understanding of them who
thus believe.
17. O that they would consent to confess
the truth from this their own statement ! for
if they once grant that God produces words,
they plainly know Him to be a Father ; and
acknowledging this, let them consider that,
while they are loth to ascribe one Word to
God, they are imagining that He is Father
of many ; and while they are loth to say that
there is no Word of God at all, yet they
do not confess that He is the Son of God, —
which is ignorance of the truth, and inexperi-
ence in divine Scripture. For if God is
Father of a word at all, wherefore is not
He that is begotten a Son? And again, who
should be Son of God, but His Word ? For
there are not many words, or each would be
imperfect, but one is the Word, that He only
may be perfect, and because, God being one,
His Image too must be one, which is the Son.
For the Son of God, as may be learnt from
the divine oracles themselves, is Himself the
Word of God, and the Wisdom, and the Image,
and the Hand, and the Power; for God's
oft'spring is one, and of the generation from
the Father these titles are tokens^. For if
you say the Son, you have declared what is
from the Father by nature; and if you think of
the Word, you are thinking again of what is
energies ; but the Son, though a Word, is not such, but, being
a Son, is a substance.' Epiph. Har. 73. 12. The Semiarians are
spealcing against SabcUianism, which took the same ground here
as Arianism ; so did the heresy of the Samosatene, who according to
Epiphanius, considered our Lord as the internal Word, or thought.
HcEr. 65. The term word in this inferior sense is often in Greek
pijua. Epiph. supr. and Cyril, de Incarn. Unig. init. t. v. i. p. 679.
5 ' If they understood and acknowledged the characteristic idea
(xapaicTTJpa) of Christianity, they would not have said that the
Lord of glory was a creature.' Ad Serap. ii. 7. In Orat. i. § 3,
he says, Arians are not Christians because they are Arians, for
Christians are called, not from Arius, but from Christ, who is
their only Master. Vid. also de Syn. § 38. init. Sent. D. fin.
Ad Afros. 4. Their cruelty and co-operation with the heathen
populace was another reason. Greg. Naz. Orat. 25. 12.
6 All the titles of the Son of God are consistent with each
other, and variously represent one and the same Person. 'Son'
and ' Word,' denote His derivation ; ' Word ' and ' Image,' His
Similitude ; 'Word' and 'Wisdom,' His immateriality ; 'Wisdom'
and ' Hand,' His co-existence. ' If He is not Son, neither is He
Image.' Orat. ii. S 2. _ ' How is there Word and Wisdom, unless
He be a proper offspring of His substance? ii. § 22. Vid. also
Orat. i. § 20. 21. and at great length Orat. iv. § 20, &c. vid. also
Na2. Orat. 30. n. 20. Basil, contr. Eunotn. i. 18. Hilar, de Trin.
vii. II. August, in Joan, xlviii. 6. and in Psalm, xliv. (xlv.) 5.
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINmON.
i6i
from Him, and what is inseparable ; and,
speaking of Wisdom, again you mean just as
much, what is not from without, but from Him
and in Him ; and if you name the Power and
ihe Hand, again you speak of what is proper
to essence ; and, speaking of the Image, you
signify the Son ; for what else is like God but
the offspring from Him ? Doubtless the things,
which came to be through the Word, these
are 'founded in Wisdom' and what are 'founded
in Wisdom,' these are all made by the Hand,
and came to be through the Son. And we
have proof of this, not from external sources,
but from the Scriptures ; for God Himself
says by Isaiah the Prophet ; ' My hand also
hath laid the foundation of the earth, and
My right hand hath spanned the heavens^.'
And again, ' And I will cover thee in the
shadow of My Hand, by which I planted the
heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth ^.'
And David being taught this, and knowing
that the Lord's Hand was nothing else than
Wisdom, says in the Psalm, ' In wisdom hast
Thou made them all ; the earth is full of Thy
creation 9.' Solomon also received the same
from God, and said, ' The Lord by wisdom
founded the earth '°,' and John, knowing
that the Word was the Hand and the Wisdom,
thus preached, ' In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God; the same was in the beginning
with God : all things were made by Him, and
without Him was not anything made'.' And
the Apostle, seeing that the Hand and
the Wisdom and the Word was nothing else
than the Son, says, * God, who at sundry
times and in- divers manners spake in time
past unto the Fathers by the Prophets, hath in
these last days spoken unto us by His Son,
whom He hath appointed Heir of all things, by
whom also He made the ages^' And again,
' There is one Lord Jesus Christ, through
whom are all things, and we through Him 3.'
And knowing also that the Word, the Wisdom,
the Son Himself was the Image of the Father,
he says in the Epistle to the Colossians,
' Giving thanks to God and the Father, which
hath made us meet to be partakers of the
inheritance of the Saints in light, who hath
delivered us from the power of darkness, and
hath translated us into the kingdom of His
dear Son ; in whom we have redemption, even
the ri.mfssion of sins; who is the Image of
the Invisible God, the First-born , of every
creature ; for by Him were all things created,
that are in heaven, and that are in earth,
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones,
' Is. xlviii. 13.
" Prov. iii. 19.
VOL. IV.
8 Is li. 16.
• Johni. I — 3.
3 1 Cor. viii. 6.
9 Ps. civ. 24.
» Heb. i. I, 2.
or dominions, or principalities, or powers ;
all things were created by Him and for Him ;
and He is before all things, and in Him all
things consist!' For as all things are created
by the Word, so, because He is the Image, are
they also created in Hims. And thus anyone
who directs his thoughts to the Lord, will
avoid stumbling upon the stone of offence, but
rather will go forward to the brightness in the
light of truth ; for this is really the doctrine of
truth, though these contentious men burst
with spite ^, neither religious toward God, nor
abashed at their confutation.
CHAPTER V.
Defence of the Council's phrases, "from
the essence," and " one in essence."
Objection that the phrases are not scriptural ;
we ought to look at the sense more than the
wording ; evasion of the Avians as to the
phrase '■'■of God'" which is in Scripture;
their evasion of all explanations but those
which the Council selected, which were in-
tetuled to negative the Arian formulce ; protest
against their conveying any material settse.
18. Now Eusebius and his fellows were at the
former period examined at great length, and
convicted themselves, as I said before ; on this
they subscribed ; and after this change of
mind they kept in quiet and retirement ^ ; but
since the present party, in the fresh arrogance
of irreligion, and in dizziness about the truth,
are full set upon accusing the Council, let
them tell us what are the sort of Scriptures
from which they have learned, or who is the
Saint ^ by whom they have been taught, that
they have heaped together the phrases, ' out
of nothing 3,' and ' He was not before His
generation,' and ' once He was not,' and
'alterable,' and ' pre-existence,' and 'at the
will ; ' which are their fables in mockery of
the Lord. For the blessed Paul in his
Epistle to the Hebrews says, ' By faith we
understand that the ages were framed by the
Word of God, so that that which is seen was
not made of things which do appear +.' But
nothing is common to the Word with the
ages 5 j for He it is who is in existence before
4 Col. i. 12 — 17.
5 Vid. a beautiful passage, contr. Gent. 42, &c. Again, of
men, de hicarn. 3. 3 ; also Oyat. ii. 78. where he speaks of Wisdom
as being infused into the world on its creation, that it might possess
' a type and semblance of its Image.'
6 Siappa-yiicrii', and so Scrap, ii. fin. SiappriyvviavTai. de Syn.
34. fiiapprj-yi/ywtrii' eauTOUS. Orat. ii. § 23. airafiaTTiTiairav €av-
Tous. Orat. ii. § 64. TpifeVw Toiis 666^'Tas. Sent. D. 16.
I [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 6(2).] 2 siipr. § 7, note 2.
3 €^ ouK oviijiv. 4 Heb. xi. 3.
5 By ai'ioi', age, seems to be meant duration, or the measure of
duration, before or independent of the existence of motion, which
is in measure of time. As motion, and therefore time, are
creatures, so are the ages. Considered as the measure of durationi
an age has a sort of positive existence, though not an ovaia. or
M
l62
DE DECRETIS, OR
the ages, by whom also the ages came to be.
And in the Shepherd ^ it is written (since they
allege this book also, though it is not of the
Canon 7), 'First of all believe, that God is
one, who created all things, and arranged
them, and brought all things from nothing into
being ; ' but this again does not relate to the
Son, for it speaks concerning all things which
came to be through Him, from whom He is
distinct; for it is not possible to reckon the
Framer of all with 'the things made by Him,
unless a man is so beside himself as to say
that the architect also is the same as the build-
ings which he rears.
Why then, when they have invented on their
part unscriptural phrases, for the purposes
of irreligion, do they accuse those who are re-
ligious in their use of them ^ ? For irreligious-
ness is utterly forbidden, though it be at-
tempted to disguise it with artful expressions
and plausible sophisms ; but religiousness is
confessed by all to be lawful, even though pre-
sented in strange phrases 9, provided only they
are used with a religious view, and a wish to
make them the expression of religious thoughts.
Now the aforesaid grovelling phrases of Christ's
enemies have been shewn in these remarks to
substance, and means the same as 'world,' or an existing system
of things viewed apart from time and motion. Vid. Theodt. in
Hebr, 1, 2. Our Lord then is the Maker of the ages thus con-
sidered, as the Apostle also tells us, Hebr. xi. 3. and God is the
King of the ages, i Tim. i. 17. or is before all ages, as being
eternal, or Trpoaiwvios. However, sometimes the word is synony-
mous with eternity ; ' as time is to things which are under time,
so ages to things which are everlasting.' Damasc. Fid. Orth.
ii. I, and ' ages of ages ' stands for eternity ; and then the ' ages '
or measures of duration may be supposed to stand lor the i'Seat or
ideas in the Divine Mind, which seems to have been a Platonic or
Gnostic nution. Hence Synesius, Hymn iii. addresses the Al-
mighty as aiiuvoTOKe, parent of the ages. Hence sometimes God
Himself is called the Age, Clem. Alex. Hymn. Peed. iii. fin. or,
the Age of ages, Pseudo-Dion, de Div. Notn. 5. p. 580. or again,
ai(onos. Theodoret sums up what has been said thus: 'Age
is not any subsisting substance, but is an interval indicative of
time, now infinite, when God is spoken of, now commensurate with
creation, now with human life.' Har. v. 6. If then, as Athan.
says in the text, the Word is Maker of the ages, He is independent
of duration altogether ; He does not come to be in time, but is
above and beyond it, or eternal. Elsewhere he says, ' The words
addressed to the Son in the 144th Psalm, ' Thy kingdom is a king-
dom of all ages,' forbid any one to imagine any interval at all in
which the Word did not exist. For if every interval is measured
by ages, and of all the ages the Word is King and Maker, there-
fore, whereas no interval at all exists prior to Him, it were mad-
ness to say, " There was once when the Everlasting (ai&ii'tos) was
not." Orat. i. 12. And so Alexander; 'Is it not unreason-
able that He who made times, and ages, and seasons, to
all of which belongs ' was not,' should be said not to be? for, if so,
that interval in which they say the Son was not yet begutten by
the Father, precedes that Wisdom of God which framed all things.'
Theod. Hist. L 4. vid also Basil de Sp. S. n. 14. Hilar, de Trin.
xii. 34.
° Herm. Mand. i. vid. ad Afr. 5.
7 [Letter 39, and Prolegg. ch. iv. 8 4-] He calls it elsewhere
a most profitable book. Incam. 3.
8 Athan. here retorts, as it was obvious to do, the charge brought
against the Council which gave occasion for this Treatise. If
the Council went beyond Scripture in the use of the word ' es-
sence' (which however can hardly be granted), who made this
necessary, but they who had already introduced the phrases, ' the
Son was out of nothing,' &c. , &c. ? 'Of the essence,' and 'one
in essence,' were directly intended to contradict and supplant
the Arian unscriptural innovations, as he says below, § 2a fin. 21.
init. vid. also ad Afros. 6. de Synod. § 36, 37. He observes in like
manner that the Arian dytVrjTos, though allowable as used by
religious men, de Syn. § 40. was unscriptural, Orat. i. § 30, 34.
Also Epiph. Hcer. 76. p. 941. Basil, contr. Eunont. i, 5. Hilar.
contr. Const. 16. Ambros. Incam. 80. 9 Vid. § 10, note 3.
be both formerly and now replete with irre-
ligion ; whereas the definition of the Council
against them, if accurately examined, will be
found to be altogether a representation of the
truth, and especially if diligent attention be
paid to the occasion which gave rise to these
expressions, which was reasonable, and was as
follows : —
19. The Council '° wishing to do away with
the irreligious phrases of the Arians, and to use
instead the acknowledged words of the Scrip-
tures, that the Son is not from nothing but 'from
God,' and is 'Word' and' Wisdom,' and not
creature or work, but a proper offspring from the
Father, Eusebius and his fellows, led by their
inveterate heterodoxy, understood the phrase
' from God ' as belonging to us, as if in respect
to it the Word of God differed nothing from
us, and that because it is written, ' There is
one God, from whom all things ' ;' and again,
' Old things are passed away, behold, all things
are become new, and all things are from God^.'
But the Fathers, perceiving their craft and the
cunning of their irreligion, were forced to express
more distinctly the sense of the words 'from
God.' Accordingly, they wrote 'from the
essence of God 3,' in order that * from God'
might not be considered common and equal
in the Son and in things originate, but that
all others might be acknowledged as crea-
tures, and the Word alone as from the Father.
For though all things be said to be from God,
yet this is not in the sense in which the Son is
from Him ; for as to the creatures, ' of God '
is said of them on this account, in that they
exist not at random or spontaneously, nor
come to be by chance*, according to those
philosophers who refer them to the combina-
tion of atoms, and to elements of similar struc-
ture,— nor as certain heretics speak of a dis-
tinct Framer, — nor as others again say that the
10 vid. ad. Afr. 5. ' i Cor. viii. 6. s 2 Cor. v. 17.
3 Hence it stands in the Creed, 'from the Father, tJiat is, from
tlie essence of the Father.' vid. Eusebius's Letter, 2'«/>-. Accord-
ing to the received doctrine ol the Church all rational beings, and
in one sense all beings whatever, are ' from God,' over and above
the fact of their creation ; and of this truth the Arians made
use to deny our Lord's proper divinity. Athan. lays down else-
where that nothing remains in consistence and life, except from
a participation of the Word, which is to be considered a gift from
Him, additional to that of creation, and separable in idea from it;
vid. above, § 17, note 5. contr. Gent. 42, de Incam. 5.
Man thus considered is, in his first estate, a son of God and bom
of God, or, to use the term which occurs so frequently in the Arian
controversy, in the number, not only of the creatures, but oi things
generate, yevvriTO.. This was the sense in which the Arians said
that our Lord was Son of God ; whereas, as Athan. says, ' things
originate, being works, cannot be called generate, except so far as,
after their making, they partake of the begotten Son, and are
therefore said to have been generated also ; not at all in their own
nature, but because of their participation of the Son in the Spirit.'
Orat. i. 36. The question then was, as to the distinction of the
Son's divine generation over that of holy men ; and the Catholics
answered that He was e j" oucrta?, from the essence of God ; not by
participation of grace, not by resemblance, not in a limited sense,
but really and simply, and therefore by an internal divine act.
vid. below, \ 22. and infr. \ 31. [The above note has been modified
so as to eliminate the erroneous identification of yevvrftb^ and
■uss/riTos.l 4 Cf. de Syn. § 35.
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
163
constitution of all things is from certain
Angels ;— but in that (whereas God is), it was
by Him that all things were brought into
being, not being before, through His Word ;
but as to the Word, since He is not a crea-
ture, He alone is both called and is ' from the
Father;' and it is significant of this sense to
say that the Son is ' from the essence of the
Father,' for to nothing originate does this attach.
In truth, when Paul says that ' all things are
from God,' he immediately adds, 'and one
Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things s,'
in order to shew all men, that the Son is
other than all these things which came to be
from God (for the things which came to be
from God, came to be through His Son ) ; and
that he had used his foregoing words with
reference to the world as framed by God ^, and
not as if all things were from the Father as the
Son is. For neither are other things as the
Son, nor is the Word one among others, for
He is Lord and Framer of all ; and on this
account did the Holy Council declare expressly
that He was of the essence ^ of the Father,
that we might believe the Word to be other
than the nature of things originate, being alone
truly from God ; and that no subterfuge should
be left open to the irreligious. This then was
the reason why the Council wrote ' of the
essence.'
20. Again, when the Bishops said that the
Word must be described as the True Power
and Image- of the Father, in all things exact ^
and like the Father, and as unalterable,
and as always, and as in Him without divi-
sion (for never was the Word not, but He
was always, existing everlastingly with the
Father, as the radiance of Hght), Eusebius and
5 I Cor. viii. 6.
^ When characteristic attributes and prerogatives are ascribed
to God, or to the Father, this is done only to the exclusion of
creatures, or of false gods, not to the exclusion of His Son who is
implied in the mention of Himself. Thus when God is called only
wise, or the Father the only God, or God is said to be unoriginate,
«ye'r>)Tos, this is not in contrast to the Son, but to all things
which are distinct from God vid. Orat. iii. 8. Naz. Orat. 30, 13.
Cyril, riusaur.y.-iifi. 'The words "one" and "only " ascribed
to God in Scripture,' says S. Basil, 'are not used in contrast to
the Son or the Holy Spirit, but with reference to those who are
not God, ,uid falsely called so.' Ep. 8. n. 3. On the other hand,
■when the Father is mentioned, the other Divine Persons are
implied in Him, 'The Blessed and Holy Trinity,' says S. Athan.
'is indivisible and one in itself; and when the Bather is mentioned,
His Word is added, and the Spirit in the Son ; and if the Son is
named, in the Son i.^ the Father, and the Spirit is not external to
the Word.' adSerap. i. Si,.
7 Vid. also ad Afros. 4. Again, ' " I am," to ov, is really proper
to God and is a whole, bounded or mutilated neither by aught
before Him, nor after Him, for He neither was, nor shall be.'
Naz. Orat. 30. 18 fin. Also Cyril Dial. i. p. 392. Damasc. Fid.
Orth. i. p. and the Semiarians at Ancyra, Epiph Ha^r. t^. 12 init.
By the essence,' however, or, 'substance' of God, the Council
did not mean any thing distinct from God, vid. note 3 infr. but
God Himself viewed in His seli-existing nature (vid. Tert. in
Hemtog, 3), nay, it expressly meant to negative the contrary
notion of the Arians, that our Lord was from something distinct
from God, and in consequence of created substance. Moreover
the term expresses tUe idea of God positively, in contradistinction
to negative epithets, such as infinite, immense, eternal, &c.
Damasc. Fid. Orthod. i. 4. and as little implies any thing distinct
from God as those epithets do. * ajrapaAAoKTOi'.
his fellows endured indeed, as not daring to
contradict, being put to shame by the argu-
ments which were urged against them; but
withal they were caught whispering to each
other and winking with their eyes, that 'like,'
and 'always,' and 'power,' and 'in Him,'
were, as before, common to us and the Son,
and that it was no difhculty to agree to these.
As to ' like,' they said that it is written of us,
' Man is the image and glory of God 9 : '
'always,' that it was written, 'For we which
live are alway i° : ' 'in Him,' ' In Him we live
and move and have our being ' : ' ' unal-
terable,' that it is written, ' Nothing shall
separate us from the love of Christ => : ' as to
' power,' that the caterpillar and the locust
are called 'power' and 'great power 3,' and
that it is often said of the people, for instance,
' All the power of the Lord came out of the land
of Egypt ^ :' and there are others also, heavenly
ones, for Scripture says, ' The Lord of
powers is with us, the God of Jacob is our
refuge s.' Indeed Asterius, by title the sophist,
had said the like in writing, having learned it
from them, and before him Arius^ having
learned it also, as has been said. But the Bi-
shops discerning in this too their dissimulation,
and whereas it is written, 'Deceit is in the
heart of the irrehgious that imagine evil?,'
were again compelled on their part to collect
the sense of the Scriptures, and to re-say and
re-write what they had said before, more dis-
tinctly still, namely, that the Son is ' one in
essence ^ ' with the Father; by way of signify-
ing, that the Son was from the Father, and not
merely like, but the same in likeness 9, and
9 I Cor. xi. 7. 10 2 Cor. iv. ii.
» Acts xvii. 28. * Rom. viii. 35, ivho shall separate.
3 Joel ii. 25. 4 Ex. xii. 41. 5 Ps. xlvi. 7.
6 vid. supr. \ 8, note 3. ^ Prov. xii. 20.
8 vid. ad Afros. 5. 6. ad Serap. ii. 5. S. Ambrose tells us, that
a Letter written by Eusebius of Nicomedia, in which he said, ' If
we call Him true Son of the Father and uncreate, then are we
granting that He is one in essence, ojnoovcrioi/,' determined the
Council on the adoption of the term, de Fid. iii. n. 125. He had
disclaimed 'of the essence,' in his Letter to Paulinus. Theod.
Hist. i. 4. Arius, however, had disclaimed o^ooiitrioi' already
Epiph. Hcer. 69. 7. It was a word of old usage in the Church,
as Eusebius of Caesarea confesses in his Letter, infr. Tertullian
in Frax. 13 fin. has the translation ' unius substantia; ' (vid. Lucifer
de lion Pare. p. 218.) as he has ' de substantia Patris,' in Prax. 4.
and Origen perhaps used the word, vid. Pamph. Apol. 5. and
Theognostus and the two Dionysii, infr. % 25, 26. And before
them Clement had spoken of the eVaxris rijs /iOfaSiKTJs ovo-i'as, ' the
union of the single essence,' vid. Le Quien in Damasc. Fid. Orth.
i. 8. Novatian too has ' per substantiae communionem,' de Trinit.
31.
9 The Arians allowed that our Lord was like and the image of the
Father, but in the sen^e in which a picture is like the original,
differing from it in substance and in fact. In this sense they even
allowed the strong word arrapdAAaKro? unvarying [or rather exact\
image, vid. 1 e;4iunlng of § 20. which had been used by the Catho-
lics (vid. Alexander, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 740.) as by tlie
Semiarians afterwards, who even added the words kot' oOo-iav, or
'according to substance.' Even this strong phrase, however, Kar'
ovaiav aJTO.pdWaKTO^ eiKWi', or ctTrapaAAaKTtos o^oto?, did not
appear to the Council an adequate safeguard of the doctrine.
Athan. notices de Syn. that 'like ' applies to qualities rather than
to essence, § 53. Also Basil. Ep. 8. n. 3. ' while in itself,' says
the same Father, 'it is frequently used of faint similitudes, and
falling very far short of the original.' Ep. 9. n. 3. Accordingly,
the Council determined on the word o|uoot;<noi' as implying, as the
M 3
104
DE DECRETIS, OR
of shewing that the Son's likeness and unalter-
ableness was different from such copy of the
same as is ascribed to us, which we acquire from
virtue on the ground of observance of the com-
mandments. For bodies which are Hke each
other may be separated and become at dis-
tances from each other, as are human sons re-
latively to their parents (as it is written concern-
mg Adam and Seth, who was begotten of liim,
that he was like him after his own pattern '°) ;
but since the generation of the Son from the
Father is not according to the nature of men,
and not only like, but also inseparable from
the essence of the Father, and He and the
Father are one, as He has said Himself, and
the Word is ever in the Father and the Father
in the Word, as the radiance stands towards
the light (for this the phrase itself indicates),
therefore the Council, as understanding this,
suitably wrote 'one in essence,' that they
might both defeat the perverseness of the
heretics, and shew that the Word was other
than originated things. For, after thus writing,
they at once added, ' But they who say
that the Son of God is from nothing, or
created, or alterable, or a work, or from other
essence, these the Holy Catholic Church anathe-
matizes'.' And by saying this, they shewed
clearly that ' of the essence,' and ' one in
essence,' are destructive of those catchwords
of irreligion, such as 'created,' and 'work,'
and 'originated,' and 'alterable,' and 'He
was not before His generation.' And he who
holds these, contradicts the Council ; but
he who does not hold with Arius, must needs
hold and intend the decisions of the Council,
suitably regarding them to signify the relation
of the radiance to the light, and from thence
gaining the illustration of the truth.
21. Therefore if they, as the others, make
an excuse that the terms are strange, let them
consider the sense in which the Council so
wrote, and anathematize what the Council
anathematized ; and then if they can, let them
find fault with the expressions. But I well
know that, if they hold the sense of the
Council, they will fully accept the terms in
which it is conveyed ; whereas if it be the
sense which they wish to complain of, all must
see that it is idle in them to discuss the word-
ing, when they are but seeking handles for ir-
' religion. This then was the reason of these
expressions ; but if they still complain that
such are not scriptural, that very complaint is
a reason why they should be cast out, as talk-
text expresses it, 'the same in likeness,' tclvtov tjj o/noiiio-ei, that
the likeness might not be analogical, vid. the passage about gold
and brass, § 23 below, Cyril in Joan. i. iii. c. v. p. 302. [See
below de Syn. 15, note 2.] 10 Gen. v. 3.
' vid. Euseb.'s Letter, supr.
ing idly and disordered in mind. And let
them blame themselves in this matter, for
they set the example, beginning their war
against God with words not in Scripture.
However, if a person is interested in the
question, let him know, that, even if the
expressions are not in so many words in
the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they
contain the sense of the Scriptures, and ex-
pressing it, they convey it to those who have
their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine.
Now this circumstance it is for thee to con-
sider, and for those ill-instructed men to give
ear to. It has been shewn above, and must be
believed as true, that the Word is from the
Father, and the only Offspring^ proper to
Him and natural. For whence may one con-
ceive the Son to be, who is the Wisdom
and the Word, in whom all things came to
be, but from God Himsell ? However, the
Scriptures also teach us this, since the Father
says by David, ' My heart uttered a good
Word 3,' and, 'From the womb before the
morning star I begat Thee*;' and the
Son signifies to the Jews about Himself, 'If
God were your Father, ye would love Me ;
for I proceeded forth from the Fathers.'
And again ; ' Not that anyone has seen the
Father, save He which is from God, He hath
seen the Father^' And moreover, ' I and
My Father are one,' and, ' I in the Father
and the Father in Me 7,' is equivalent to
saying, 'I am from the Father, and inseparable
from Him.' And John in saying, 'The Only-
begotten Son which is in the bosom of the
Father, He hath declared Him^,' spoke of
what He had learned from the Saviour. Be-
sides, what else does ' in the bosom ' intimate,
but the Son's genuine generation from the
Father ?
2 2. If then any man conceives God to be
compound, as accident 9 is in essence, or
* yevvrifia, offspring ; this word is of very frequent occurrence
ill Athan. He speaks of it, Otat. iv. 3. as virtually Scriptural. Yet
Basil, contr. Eiinoin. ii. 6 — 8. expl citly tli>.ivows the word, as
an unscriptural invention of EunuiTiius. 'That the Father begat
we are taught in many places: that the Son is an offspring we
never heard up to this day, lor Scripture says, " unto us a child is
born, unto us a son is given.'" c. 7. He goes on to say that ' it is
fearful to give Him names of our own to whom God has given
a name which is above every name ;' and observes that offspring
is not the word which even a human father would apply to his son,
as for instance we read, 'Child, (t£ki/oi',) go into tlie vineyard,'
and ' Who art thou, my son ?' moreover that fruits of the earth are
called offspring (' I will not drink of the offspring of this vine '),
rarely animated things, except indeed in such instances as, 'O
generation (offspring) of vipers.' Nyssen defends his brother,
contr. Eunotn. Oral. iii. p. 105. In the Arian formula ' an off-
spring, but not as one of the offspiings,' it is synonymous with
'work' or 'creature.' On the other hand Epiphanius uses it,
e.g. Hcer. 76. n. 8. and Naz. Oral. 29. n. 2. Eusebius, Demonstr.
Ev. iv. 2. Pseudo-Basil, adv. Eunom. iv. p. 280. fin.
3 Ps. xlv. I. 4 lb. ex. 3. 5 John viii. 42.
6 lb. vi. 46. 7 lb. x. 30, and xiv. 10. 8 lb. i. i8.
9 (TVfijSf/SrjKos. Cf. Orat. iv. 2. also Orat. i. 36. The text em-
bodies the common doctrine of the Fathers. Aihenagoras, how-
ever, speaks of God's goodness as an accident, 'as colour to the
body,' ' as flame is ruddy and the sky blue,' Legat. 24. This, how-
ever, is but a verbal difference, for shortly before he speaks of His
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
i6s
to have any external envelopement ^ and
to be encompassed, or as if there is aught
about Him which completes the essence, so
that when we say 'God,' or name 'Father,'
we do not signify the invisible and incom-
prehensible essence, but something about it,
then let them complain of the Council's
stating that the Son was from the essence
of God ; but let them reflect, that in thus con-
sidering they utter two blasphemies ; for they
make God corporeal, and they falsely say
that the Lord is not Son of the very Father,
but of what is about Him. But if God be
simple, as He is, it follows that in saying
' God ' and naming ' Father,' we name nothing
as if about Him, but signify his essence
itself. For though to comprehend what the
essence of God is be impossible, yet if we
only understand that God is, and if Scripture
indicates Him by means of these titles, we,
with the intention of indicating Him and none
else, call Him God and Father and Lord.
When then He says, ' I am that I am,' and ' I
am the Lord God^,' or when Scripture says,
' God,' we understand nothing else by it but
the intimation of His incomprehensible es-
sence Itself, and that He Is, who is spoken
of3. Therefore let no one be startled on
hearing that the Son of God is from the Es-
sence of the Father ; but rather let him accept
the explanation of the Fathers, who in more
explicit but equivalent language have for * from
God' written 'of the essence.' For they con-
sidered it the same thing to say that the Word
was 'of God' and 'of the essence of God,' since
being, to oi/tw; ov, and His unity of nature, to ixovo<l>vis, as in the
number of cTrccrun^e^rj/coTa ai/TO). Eusebius uses the word (TUfi^t-
Pr)Ko? in the same way [but see Orat. iv. 2, note 8], Demoiistr.
Evang. iv. 3. And hence S. Cyril, in controversy with the Arians,
is led by the course of their objections to observe, ' There are
cogent reasons for considering these things as accidents oaifi^e-
firiKora in God, though they be not.' TItesaur. p. 263. vid. the
following note.
» Trepi^oAr), and so de Syn. \ 34. which is very much the same
passage. Some Fathers, however, seem to say the reverse. E.g.
Nazianzen says that ' neither the immateriality of God nor in-
generateness, present to us His essence.' Orat. 28. 9. And
S. Augustine, arguing on the word ingenitus, says, that 'not every
thing which is said to be in God is said according to essence.'
de Trin. v. 6. And hence, while Athan. in the text denies that
there are qualities or the like belonging to Him. Trepl avjov, it
is still common in the Fathers to speak of qualities, as in the
passage of S. Gregory just cited, in which the words irepl 0eov
occur. There is no difficulty in reconciling these statements,
though it would require more words than could be given to it here.
Petavius has treated the subject fully in his work de Deo i. 7— 11.
and especially ii. 3. When the Fathers say that there is no differ-
ence between the divine ' proprietates ' and essence, they speak of
the fact, considering the Almighty as He is ; when they affirm
a difference, they speak of Him as contemplated by us, who are
unalile to grasp the idea of Him as one and simple, but view His
Divine Nature as if in projection (if such a word may be used),
and thus divided into substance and quality as man may be divided
into genus and difference. ^ Ex. iii. 14, 15.
3 In like manner de Synod. § 34. Also Basil, ' The essence
is not any one of things which do not attach, but is the very being
of God.' contr. Run. i. to fin. 'The nature of God is no other
than Himself, for He is simple and uncompounded.' Cyril Thesaur.
p. 59. ' When we say the power of tlie Father, we say nothing else
than the essence of the Father.' August, de Trin. vii. 6. And
50 Numenius in Eusebius, ' Let no one deride, if I say that the
name of the Immaterial is essence and being." Praep. Evang.
xi. 10.
the word ' God,' as I have already said,
signifies nothing but the essence of Him Who
Is. If then the Word is not in such sense
from God, as a son, genuine and natural,
from a father, but only as creatures because
they are framed, and as 'all things are from
God,' then neither is He from the essence of
the Father, nor is the Son again Son according
to essence, but in consequence of virtue, as we
who are called sons by grace. But if He only
is from God, as a genuine Son, as He is, then
the Son may reasonably be called from the
essence of God.
23. Again, the illustration of the Light and
the Radiance has this meaning. For the
Saints have not said that the Word was re-
lated to God as fire kindled from the heat of
the sun, which is commonly put out again, for
this is an external work and a creature of its
author, but they all preach of Him as
Radiance-*, thereby to signify His being from
the essence, proper and indivisible, and His
oneness with the Father. This also will secure
His true unchangableness and immutability ;
for how can these be His, unless He be
proper Offspring of the Fatlier's essence?
for this too must be taken to confirm His
identity with His own Father. Our ex-
planation then having so religious an aspect,
Christ's enemies should not be startled at
the 'One in essence,' either, since this term
also has a sound sense and good reasons.
Indeed, if we say that the Word is from
the essence of God (for after what has been
said this must be a phrase admitted by
them), what does this mean but the truth
and eternity of the essence from which
He is begotten? for it is not different
in kind, lest it be combined with the essence
of God, as something foreign and unlike it.
Nor is He like only outwardly, lest He seem
in some respect or wholly to be other in
essence, as brass shines like gold and silver
hke tin. For these are foreign and of other
nature, are separated off from each other in
nature and virtues, nor is brass proper to gold,
nor is the pigeon born from the doves ; but
4 Athan.'s ordinary illustration is, as here, not from ' fire," but from
' radiance,' aTravyao-fia, after S. Paul [i.e. Heorews] and the Author
of the Book of W isdom, meaning by radiance tiie light whicn a light
diffuses by means of the atmosphere. On the other hand Anus in
his letter to Alexander, Epiph. Hcer. 69. 7. speaks agamst the
doctrine of Hieracas that the Son was from the Father as a light
from a light or as a lamp divided into two, which after all was
Arian doctrine. Athanasius refers to fire, Orat. iv. § 2 and 10, but
still to fire and its radiance. However we find the lUustiation
of fire from fire, Justin. Tryph. 61. Tatian contr. Grac. 5.^ At this
early day the illustration of radiance might have a Sabellian bear-
ing, as that of fire in Athan.'s had an Arian. Hence Justin protests
against those who considered the Son as ' like thesun's light in the
heaven,' which 'when it sets, goes away with it,' whereas it is
as ' fire kindled from fire." Tryph. 128. Athenagoras, however,
like Athanasius, says 'as light from hre,' using also the word
iTToppoto, effluence : vid. also Oiig. Periarch. i. 2. n. 4. Tertull.
Ap. 21. Theognostus, quoted infr. \ 25.
5 vid. de Syn. § 41.
1 66
DE DECRETIS, OR
ihough they are considered like, yet they difter
in essence. If then it be thus with the
Son, let Him be a creature as we are, and not
One in essence ; but if the Son is Word,
Wisdom, Image of the Father, Radiance, He
must in all reason be One in essence. For
unless it be proved that He is not from God,
but an instrument different in nature and
different in essence, surely tlie Council was
sound in its doctrine and correct in its
decree^,
24. Further, let every corporeal inference
be banished on this subject ; and transcend-
ing every imagination of sense, let us, with
pure understanding and with mind alone,
apprehend the genuine relation of son to
father, and the Word's proper relation to-
wards God, and the unvarying likeness of
the radiance towards the light : for as the
words ' Offspring ' and ' Son ' bear, and are
meant to bear, no human sense, but one
suitable to God, in like manner when we hear
the phrase ' one in essence,' let us not fall
upon human senses, and imagine partitions
and divisions of the Godhead, but as having
our thoughts directed to things immaterial, let
us preserve undivided the oneness of nature
and the identity of light ; for this is proper
to a son as regards a father, and in this
is shewn that God is truly Father of the
Word. Here again, the illustration of light
and its radiance is in point?. Who will
presume to say that the radiance is unlike
and foreign to the sun? rather who, thus
considering the radiance relatively to the sun,
and the identity of the light, would not say
with confidence, 'Truly the light and the
radiance are one, and the one is manifested in
the other, and the radiance is in the sun, so
that whoso sees this, sees that also?' but
such a oneness and natural property, what
should It be named by those who believe and
see aright, but Offspring one in essence ? and
God s Offspring what should we fittingly and
suitably consider, but Word, and Wisdom,
and Power? which it were a sin to say was
foreign to the Father, or a crime even to
imagine as other than with Him everlastingly.
For by this Offspring the Father made all
things, and extended His Providence unto all
things ; by Him He exercises His love to man,
and thus He and the Father are one, as
has been said ; unless indeed these perverse
6 As 'of the essence * declared that our Lord was uncreate, so
'one in essence" declared that He was equal with the Father;
tio term derived from ' likeness.' even 'like in essence' answering
for this purpose, for such phrases might all be understood oi resem-
blance or representation, vid. § 20, notes 8, 9.
7 Athan. has just used the illustration of radiance in reference
to 'of the essence:' and now he says that it equally illustrates
'one in essence;' the light diffused from the sun being at once
contemporaneous and homogeneous with its original.
men make a fresh attempt, and say that
the essence of the Word is not the same as
the Light which is in Him from the Father,
as if the Light in the Son were one with the
Father, but He Himself foreign in essence as
being a creature. Yet this is simply the belief
of Caiaphas and the Samosatene, which the
Church cast out, but these now are disguising j
and by this they fell from the truth, and were
declared to be heretics. For if He partakes in
fulness the light from the Father, why is He
not rather that which others partake^, that
there be no medium introduced between
Him and the Father ? Otherwise, it is no
longer clear that all things were generated by
the Son, but by Him, of whom He too par-
takes 9. And if this is the Word, the Wisdom
of the Father, in whom the Father is revealed
and known, and frames the world, and with-
out whom the Father doth nothing, evidently
He it is who is from the Father : for all things
originated partake of Him, as partaking of the
Holy Ghost. And being such, He cannot be
from nothing, nor a creature at all, but rather
a proper Offspring from the Father, as the
radiance from light.
CHAPTER VL
Authorities in support of the Council.
Theognosius ; Dionysius of Alexandria ;
Dionysius of Rome ; Origen.
25. This then is the sense in which they
who met at Nicsea made use of these expres-
sions. But next that they did not invent them
for themselves (since this is one of their
excuses), but spoke what they had received
from their predecessors, proceed we to prove
this also, to cut off even this excuse from
them. Know then, O Arians, foes of Christ,
that Theognostus % a learned man, did not
decline the phrase ' of the essence,' for in
the second book of his Hypotyposes, he writes
thus of the Son : —
" The essence of the Son is not one procured
8 Vid. § 10 init. note 4.
9 The point in which perhaps all the ancient heresies concerning
our Lord's divine nature agreed, was in considering His different
titles to be those of different bemgs or subjects, or not really and
properly to belong to one and the same person ; so that the Word
was not the Son, or the Radiance not the Word, or our Lord was
the Son, but only improperly the Word, not the true Word, Wisdom,
or Radiance. Paul of Samosata, Sabellius [?], and Arius, agreed in
considering that the Son was a creature, and that He was called,
made after, or inhabited by the impersonal attribute called the
Word or Wisdom. When the Word or Wisdom was held to be
personal, it became the doctrine of Nestorius.
' Athanasius elsewhere calls him ' the admirable and excellent.'
ad Serap. iv. 9. He was Master of the Catechetical school of
Alexandria towards the end of the third century, being a scholar,
or at least a follower of Origen. His .seven books of Hypotyposes
treated of the Holy Trinity, of angels, and evil spirits, of the
Incarnation, and the Creation. Photius, who gives this account,
Cod. J06, accuses him of heterodoxy on these points; which
Athanasius in a measure admits, as far as the wording of his
treatise went, when he speaks of his 'investigating by way of
exercise.' Eusebius does not mention him at all. [His remains ia
Routh, Rell. iii. 409— 414.J ,
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
167
from without, nor accruing out of nothing* but it
sprang from the Father's essence, as the radiance
of light, as the vapour 3 of water ; for neither the
radiance, nor the vapour, is the water itself or the sun
itself, nor is it alien ; but it is an effluence of the
Father's essence, which, however, suffers no parti-
tion. For as the sun remains the same, and is not
impaired by the rays poured forth by it, so neither does
the Father's essence suffer change, though it has the
Son as an Image of Itself*."
Theognostus then, after previously investi-
gating in the way of an exercise s, proceeds to
lay down his sentiments in the foregoing words.
Next, Dionysius, who was Bishop of Alex-
andria, upon his writing against Sabellius and
expounding at large the Saviour's Economy
according to the flesh, and thence proving
against the Sabellians that not the Father but
His Word became flesh, as John has said,
was suspected of saying that the Son was
a thing made and originated, and not one in
essence with the Father ; on this he writes to
his namesake Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, to
allege in his defence that this was a slander
upon him. And he assured him that he had
not called the Son made, nay, did confess Him
to be even one in essence. And his words ran
thus : —
" And I have written in another letter a refutation of
the false charge they bring against me, that I deny that
Christ was one in essence with God. For though I say
that 1 have not found this term anywhere in Holy Scrip-
ture, yet my remarks which follow, and which they
have not noticed, are not inconsistent with that belief.
For I instanced human birth as being evidently
homogeneous, and I observed that undeniably parents
differed from their children only in not being the same
individuals, otherwise there could be neither parents nor
children. And my letter, as I said before, owing to pre-
sent circumstances I am unable to produce ; or I would
have sent you the very words I used, or rather a copy of
it all, which, if I have an opportunity, I will do still.
But I am sure from recollection that 1 adduced parallels
' Vid. above § 15. fin. ' God was alone,' says TertuUian,
'because there was nothing external to Him, extrinsecus ; yet
not even then alone, for He had with Him, what He had in Him-
self, His Reason.' in Prax. 5. Non per adoptionem spiritus filius
fit extrinsecus, sed natura filius est. Origen. Periarck. i. 2. n. 4.
3 From Wisdom vii 25. and so Origen, Periarch. i. 2. n. 5. and
9. and Athan. de Sent. Dionys. 15.
4 It is sometimes erroneously supposed that such illustrations
as this are intended to explain how the Sacred Mystery in ques-
tion is possible, whereas they are merely intended to shew that the
words we use concerning it are not self-contradictory, which is the
objection most commonly brought against them. To say that the
doctrine of the Son's generation does not intrench upon the Father's
perfection and immutability, or negative the Son's eternity, seems
at first sight inconsistent with what the words Father and Son mean,
till another image is adduced, such as the sun and radiance, in
which that alleged inconsistency is seen to exist in fact. Here
one image corrects another ; and the accumulation of images is
not, as is often thought, the restless and fruitless effort of the
mind to enter into the Mystery, but is 3. safeguard 2.%-a\-!\%X. any one
image, nay, any collection of images being supposed S7iffi.cient.
If it be said that the language used concerning the sun and its
radiance is but popular not philosophical, so again the Catholic
language concerning the Holy Trinity may, nay must be, eco-
nomical, not adequate, conveying the truth, not in the tongues
of angels, but under human modes of thought and speech.
5 tv yM\i.vo.<Ti<x efeVacras. And so § 27. of Origen, ^riTwi/ Kai
yv^vi.C,iov. Constantine too, writing to Alexander and Arius,
speaks of altercation, i^uo-i/crjs nvos yu/u.i'ao-tac eveKa. Socr. i. 7.
In somewhat a similar way, Athanasius speaks of Dionysius
writing Kar olKovo/JLiav, economically, or with reference to certain
persons addressed or objects contemplated, de Sent. D. 6. and 26.
of things kindred with each other ; for instance, that
a plant grown from seed or from root, was other than
that from which it sprang, yet was altogether one in na-
ture with it * : and that a stream flowing from a foun-
tain, gained a new name, for that neither the fountain
was called stream, nor the stream fountain, and both
existed, and the stream was the water from the foun-
tain."
26. And that the Word of God is not
a work or creature, but an offspring proper to
the Father's essence and indivisible, as the
great Council wrote, here you may see in the
words of Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, who,
while writing against the Sabellians, thus in-
veighs against those who dared to say so : —
'' Next, I may reasonably turn to those who divide and
cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the
Church of God, the Divine Monarchy', making it as it
were three powers and partitive subsistences ''" and god-
heads three. I am told that some among you who are cate-
chists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the lead in
this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to
Sabellius's opinions ; for he blasphemously says that the
Son is the Father, and the Father the Son, but they in
some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the sacred Monad
into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly
separate. For it must needs be that with the God of the
Universe, the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost
must repose* and habitate in God; thus in one as in
a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the
Divine Triad* be gathered up and brought together.
6 The Arians at Nicaea objected to this image, Socr. i. 8. as
implying that the Son was a wpo/SoAj), issue or development, as
Valentinus taught. Epiph. /iter. 69. 7. Athanasius elsewhere
uses it himself.
7 By the Monarchy is meant the doctrine that the Se-
cond and Third Persons in the Ever-blessed Trinity are ever
to be referred in our thoughts to the First as the Fountain
of Godhead, vid. § 15. note 9, and § 19, note 6. It is one of
the especial senses in which God is said to be one. Cf. Orat.
iii. § 15. vid. also iv. § i. ' The Father is union, ecwiris,' says
S. Greg. Naz. 'from whom and unto whom are the others.' Orat,
42. 15. also Orat. 20. 7. and Epiph. Hier. 57. 5. TertuUian, before
IDionysius, uses the word Monarchia, which Praxeas had perverted
into a kind of Unitarianism or Sabellianism, in Prax. 3. Irenccus
too wrote on the Monarchy, i.e. against the doctrine that God
is the author of evil. Eus. Hist. v. 20. [see S. \rftn. fragment 33,
Ante-Nic. Lib. ] And before him was Justin's work de Monarchia,
where the word is used in opposition to Polytheism. The Mar-
cionites, whom Dionysius presently mentions, are also specified in
the above extract by Athan. vid. also Cyril. Hier. Cat. xvi. 3.
Epiphanius says that their three origins were God, the Creator,
and the evil spirit. Hcer. 42, 3. or as Augustine says, the good,
the just, and the wicked, which may be taken to mean nearly the
sanie thing. Har. 22. The Apostolical Canons denounce those
who baptize into Three Unoriginate ; vid. also Athan. Tom. cuL
Antioch. 5. Naz. Orat. 20. 6. Basil denies Tpets ap;^;iKal On-ocrTa-
<rei?, de Sp. S. 38. which is a Platonic phrase.
7" And so Dionysius Alex, in a fragment preserved by S. Basil,
' If because the subsistences are three, they say that they are
partitive, /jie^eptcr/iieVa?, still three there are, though these persons
dissent, or they utterly destroy the Divine Trinity.' de Sp. S.
n. 72. Athan. expresses the same more distinctly, ov rpets uttootto-
cFeis fiejueptcr/iieVas, Expos. Fid. \ 2. In S. Greg. Naz. we find
aHiepttTTOS iv /ii.6/xepicr/xeVois y[ Oeoryji. Orat. 31. 14. El.sewhere
for fien. he substitutes (l7reppm/;u.eVas. Orat. 20. 6. an-efei/co/aeVas
aAA^Atoi/ Kal 5ie<r7ra<r^teVas. Orat. 23. 6. as infr. feW; aX\-f{K(av
TravTOLwacri Kex'^P'-^^t'-^v-^' The passage in the text comes into
question in tlie controversy about the ef un-ocrratrews ^ ova-ia-i
of the Nicene Creed, of which infr. on the Creed itself m Euse-
bius's Letter. * efi<|>iAox<upsi>'.
9 The word rpias, usually translated Trinity, is first used by
Theophilus, ad Atctol. ii. 15. Gibbon remarks that the doctrine
of ' a numerical rather than a generical unity,' which has beeu
explicitly put forth by the Latin Church, is favoured by the
Latin language ; rptas seems to excite the idea of substance,
trinitas of qualities.' ch. 21. note 74. It is certain that the
Latin view of the sacred truth, when perverted, becomes Sabel-
lianism ; and that the Greek, when perverted, becomes \rian-
ism ; and we find Arius arising in the East, Sabellius in the
West. It is also certain that the word Trinitas is properly ab-
stract; and expresses Ti;d; or 'a three,' only in an ecclesiastical
i68
DE DECRETIS, OR
For it is the doctrine of the presumptuous Mavcion, to
sever and divide the Divine Monarchy into three
origins, — a devil's teaching, not that of Christ's true
disciples and lovers of the Saviour's lessons. For they
know well that a Triad is preached by divine Scripture,
but that neither Old Testament nor New preaches three
Gods. Equally must one censure those who hold the
Son to be a work, and consider that the Lord has
come into being, as one of things which really came to
be ; whereas the divine oracles witness to a genera-
tion suitable to Him and becoming, but not to any
fashioning or making. A blasphemy then is it, not
ordinary, but even the highest, to say that the Lord is in
any sort a handiwork. For if He came to be Son, once
He was not ; but He was always, if (that is) He be in
the Father, as He says Himself, and if the Christ be
Word and Wisdom and Power (which, as ye know,
divine Scripture says), and these attributes be powers of
God. If then the Son came into being, once these at-
tributes were not ; consequently there was a time,
when God was without them ; which is most absurd.
And why say more on these points to you, men full of
the Spirit and well aware of the absurdities which
come to view from saying that the Son is a work ? Not
attending, as I consider, to this circumstance, the
authors of this opinion have entirely missed the truth, in
e.xplaining, contrary to the sense of divine and pro-
phetic Scripture in the passage, the words, ' The Lord
created me a beginning of His ways unto His works ^'
For the sense of ' He created,' as ye know, is not
one, for we must understand ' He created ' in this
place, as ' He set over the works made by Him,' that is,
'made by the Son Himself And 'He created' here
must not be taken for 'made,' for creating differs from
making. 'Is not He thy Father that hath bought
thee ? hath He not made thee and created thee * ? ' says
Moses in his great song in Deuteronomy. And one may
say to them, O reckless men, is He a work, who
is ' the First-born of every creature, who is born from
the womb before the morning star 3, ' who said, as Wis-
dom, 'Before all the hills He begets me*?' And in
many passages of the divine oracles is the Son said to
have been 5 generated, but nowhere to have * come into
being ; which manifestly convicts those of misconception
about the Lord's generation, who presume to call His
divine and ineffable generation a making*. Neither
then may we divide into three Godheads the wonderful
and divine Monad ; nor disparage with the name of
' work ' the dignity and exceeding majesty of the Lord ;
but we must believe in God the Father Almighty, and
in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and
hold that to the God of the universe the Word is
united'. For ' I,' says He, 'and the Father are one ; '
sense. But Gibbon does not seem to observe that Unitas is ab-
stract as well as Trinitas ; and that we might just as well say
in consequence, that the Latins held an abstract unity or a unity
of qualities, while the Greeks by /noias taught the doctrine of
' a one ' or a numerical unity. ' Singularitatem banc dico (says
S. Ambrose), quod Graece ^01/6x175 dicitur ; singularitas ad per-
sonam pertinet, unitas ad naturam.' de Fid. v. i. It is important,
however, to understand, that 'Trinity ' does not mean the state .or
condition of being three, as humanity is the condition of being
man, but is synonymous with ' three persons.' Humanity does
not exist and cannot be addressed, but the Holy Trinity is a three,
or_a unity which exists in three. Apparently from not considering
this, Luther and Calvin objected to the word Trinity, ' It is
a common prayer,' says Calvin : ' Holy Trinity, one God, have
mercy on iis. It displeases me, and savours throughout of bar-
barism.' Ep. ad Poion. p. 796.
I Prov. viii. 22. a Deut. xxxii. 6. 3 Col. i. 15, and Ps.
ex. 3. 4 Prov. viii. 25.
5 yey€vvr\<TBai.
y^yovevai.
7 This extract discloses to us (in connexion with the passages
from Dionysius Alex, here and in the de Sent. D.) a. remarkable
anticipation of the Arian controversy in the third century, i. It
appears that the very symbol of qv ore ovk y)v, 'once He was not,'
was asserted or implied ; vid. also the following extract from
Origen, § 27. and Oritjen Periarchon, iv. 28. where mention is also
m.ade of the ef ovk. oi'tioi/, ' out of nothing,' which was the Arian
symbol in opposition to 'of the substance.' Allusions are made
and, ' I in the Father and the Father in Me.' For thus
both the Divine Triad, and the holy preaching of the
Monarchy, will be preserved."
27. And concerning the everlasting co-ex-
istence of the Word vi'ith the Father, and that
He is not of another essence or subsistence,
but proper to the Father's, as the Bishops in
the Council said, you may hear again from the
labour-loving ^ Origen also. For what he has
written as if inquiring and by way of exercise,
that let no one take as expressive of his own
sentiments, but of parties who are contending
in investigation, but what he 9 definitely de-
clares, that is the sentiment of the labour-lov-
ing man. After his prolusions then (so to
speak) against the heretics, straightway he in-
troduces his personal belief, thus : —
"If there be an Image of the Invisible God, it
is an invisible Image ; nay, I will be bold to add,
that, as being the likeness of the Father, never was
it not. For when was that God, who, according to
John, is called Light (for 'God is Light'), without
a radiance of His proper glory, that a man should
presume to assert the Son's origin of existence, as if be-
fore He was not? But when was not that Image of the
Father's Ineffable and Nameless and Unutterable sub-
sistence, that Expression and Word, and He that knows
the Father? for let him understand well who dares to
say, 'Once the Son was not,' that he is saying, 'Once
Wisdom was not,' and ' Word was not,' and ' Life was
not.'"
And again elsewhere he says : —
" But it is not innocent nor without peril, if because
of our weakness of understanding we deprive God, as far
as in us lies, of the Only-begotten Word ever co-existing
with Him ; and the Wisdom in which He rejoiced ;
else He must be conceived as not always possessed of
joy."
See, we are proving that this view has been
transmitted from father to father ; but ye, O
modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how
many fathers can ye assign to your phrases ?
Not one of the understanding and wise ; for
all abhor you, but the devil alone 9* j none but
he is your father in this apostasy, who both in
the beginning sowed you with the seed of this
besides, to ' the Father not being always Father,' de Sent. D. 15.
and ' the Word being brought to be by the true Word, and Wisdom
by the true Wisdom ;' ibid. 25. 2. The same special text is used
in defence of the heresy, and that not at first si^ht an obvious one,
which is found among the Arians, Prov. viii. 22. 3. The same
texts were used by the Catholics, which occur in the Arian con-
troversy, e.g. Deut. xxxii. 6. against Prov. viii. 22. and such as
Ps. ex. 3. Prov. viii. 25. and the two John x. 30. and xiv. 10. 4. The
same Catholic symbols and statements are found, e.g. ' begotten
not made,' ' one in essence,' 'Trinity,' aSiaiperoi/, avapxov, aei-yei/es,
' light from light,' &c. Much might be said on this circumstance,
as forming part of the proof of the very early date of the develop-
ment and formation of the Catholic theology, which we are at first
sight apt to ascribe to the 4th and 5th centuries. [But see Introd.
to de Sent. Dion.]
8 <f)i\ow6i/ov, and so Scrap, iv. 9. [This place is referred to by
Socr. vi. 13.1
9 a ^xk^J (is ^YjTitJv Kol yvfj.i'd^oii' epyat//c, ravra fjirj ois avTOV
^poi'OvvTO^ 6cve(70(o Tts, aX\a. TOiv Trpbs eptv <l>i\ovciKOVVT(au ev Toi
Ci7T€ti/, aSfa)9 opi^uiv a7ro<^atVeTat, toOto roi) <^tAo7roi/ov to (fypovyj^a
ecTTi. ' aKKa. Certe legendiim iAA' a, idque omnino exigit sensus.
Montfaucon. Rather tor aSews read a 6e oii, and put the stop at
ir)T(lv instead of StxeVflio Tis.
9» Supr. § 5.
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
169
irreligion, and now persuades you to slander
the Ecumenical Council ', for committing to
writing, not your doctrines, but that which from
the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and
ministers of the Word have handed down to
us^ For the faitii which the Council has con-
fessed in writing, that is the faith of the Cath-
olic Church ; to assert this, the blessed Fathers
so expressed themselves while condemning the
Arian heresy ; and this is a chief reason why
these apply themselves to calumniate the
Council. For it is not the terms which
trouble them ^\ but that those terms prove
them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond
other heresies.
CHAPTER Vir.
On the Arian Symbol " Unoriginate."
This term afterwards adopted by them; and
why ; three senses of it. A fourth setise.
Unoriginate denotes God in contrast to His
creatures, not to His Son; Father the scrip-
tural title instead ; Conclusion.
28. This in fact was the reason, when the
» vid. supr. § 4. Orat. i. § 7. Ad Afros. 2, twice. Apol. contr.
Arian. 7. ad Ep. /Eg. 5. Epiph. Hxr. jo. 9. Euseb. yit. Const.
iii. 6. The Council was more commonly called /xe-yaArj, vid. supr.
g 26. The second General Council, a.d. 381, took the name of
ecumenical, vid. Can. 6. hn. but incidentally. The Council of
Ephesus so styles itself in the opening of its Synodical Letter.
2 The profession under which the decrees of Councils come to
us is that of setting forth in writing what has ever been held orally
or implicitly in the Church. Hence the frequent use of such phrases
as iyypa<f)uj<; e^iridrj with reference to them. Thus Damasus,
Theod. //. E. v. 10. speaks of that 'apostolical faith, which was
set forth in writing by the Fathers in NicEea.' On the other
hand, Ephrem of Antioch speaks of the doctrine of our Lord's
perfect humanity being ' inculcated by our Holy Fathers, but not
as yet li.e. till the Council of Clialcedon] being confinnedhy the
decree of an ecumenical Council.' Phot. 229. p. 801. {cyy pa4>ios,
however, sometimes relates to the act of subscribing. Phot. Hid.
or to Scripture, Clement. Stro)n. i. init. p. 321.) Hence Athan.
says ad Afros, i. and 2. that ' the Word of the Lord which was
given through the ecumenical Council in Nicaea reniaineth for
ever;' and uses against its opposers the texts, 'Remove not the
ancient landmark which thy fathers have set ' ' vid. also Dionysius
in Eus. H. E. vii. 7.), and ' He that curseth his father or his mother,
sliall surely be put to death.' Prov. xxii. 28. Ex. xxi. 17. vid. also
Athan. ad Epict. i. And the Council of Chalcedon professes to
' drive away the doctrines of error by a common decree, and renew
the unswerving faitli of the Fathers,' Act. v. p. 452. [t. iv. 1453 ed.
Col.] ' as,' they proceed, ' from of old the prophets spoke of Christ,
and He Himself instructed us, and the creed of the Fathers has
delivered to us,' whereas 'other faith it is not lawful for any to
bring forth, or to write, or to draw up, or to hold, or to teach.'
p. 456. [1460 ed. Col.] vid. S. Leo. supr. p. 5. note m. This, how-
ever, did not interfere with their adding without imdoing. ' For,'
says Vigilius, ' if it were unlawlul to leceive aught further after the
Nicene statutes, on what authority venture we to assert that the
Holy Ghost is of one substance with the Father, which it is
notorious was there omitted?' contr. Eutych. v. init.; he gives
other instances, some in point, others not. vid. also Eulogius, apud
Phot. Cod. 23. pp. 829. 853. Vet to add to the confession of the
Church is not to add to i\ie. faith, since nothing can be added to
the faith. Leo, Ep. 124. p. 1237. Nay, Athan. says that the
Nicene faith is sufficient to refute every heresy, ad Max. 5. fin.
(also Leo. Ep. 54. p. 956. and Naz. Ep. 102. init.) excepting, how-
ever, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit ; which explains his meaning.
The Henoticon of Zeno says tfie same, but with the intention of
dealing a blow at the Council of Chalcedon. Evagr. iii. 14. p. 345.
Aeiius at Chalcedon says that at Ephesus and Chalcedon the
Fathers did not profess to draw up an exposition of faith, and that
Cyril and Leo did but interpret the Creed. Cone. t. 2. p. 428.
[t. iv. 1430, 1431 ed. Col. See this whole subject very amply
treated in Dr. Pusey's On the Clause, And the Son, pp. 76 sqq.]
Leo even says that the Apostles' Creed is sufficient against all
heresies, and that Eutyches erred on a point ' of which our Lord
wished no one of either sex in the Church to be ignorant,' and
he wishes Eutyches to take the plentitude of the Creed ' puro et
simplici corde.' Ep. 31. p. 857, 8. *• Supr. § 21. init.
unsound nature of their phrases had been
exposed at that time, and they were hence-
forth open to the charge of irreligion, that they
proceeded to borrow of the Greeks the term
Unoriginate', that, under shelter of it, they
might reckon among the things originated and
the creatures, that Word of God, by whom
these very things came to be; so unblushing
are they in their irreligion, so obstinate in
their blasphemies against the Lord. If then
this want of shame arises from ignorance of
the term, they ought to have learned of those
who gave it them, and who have not scrupled
to say that even intellect, which they derive
from Good, and the soul which proceeds from
intellect, though their respective origins be
known, are notwithstanding unoriginated, for
they understand that by so saying they do
not disparage that first Origin of which the
others come^. This being the case, let them
say the like themselves, or else not speak at
all of what they do not know. But if they
consider they are acquainted with the subject,
then they must be interrogated ; for3 the
expression is not from divine Scripture^, but
they are contentious, as elsewhere, for un-
scriptural positions. Just as I have related the
reason and sense, with which the Council and.
the Fathers before it defined and published
'of the essence,' and 'one in essence,' agree-
ably to what Scripture says of the Saviour ; so
now let them, if they can, answer on their part
what has led them to this unscriptural phrase,
and in what sense they call God Unoriginated ?
In truth, I am told'^% that the name has
' a.yivi)TOv. Opportunity will occur for noticing this celebrated
word on Orat. i. 30 — 34. where the present passage is partly re-
written, partly transcribed. Mention is also made of it in the
De Syn. 46, 47. Athanasius would seem to have been but partially-
acquainted with the writings of the Anomoeans, whose symbol it
was, and to have argued with them from the writings of the elder
Arians, who had also made use of it. [On Newman's unfortunate
confusion of a.yevr]Tov and ayivvrfTov, see Liglitfoot, as quoted in
the note on Exp. Fid. § i. Newman's reasons are stated in note 7
to Orat. i. 56.]
2 Montfaucon quotes a passage from Plato's Phaedrus, in which
the human soul is called 'unoriginate and immortal [246 a.];' but
Athan. is referring to another subject, the Platonic, or rather the
Eclectic [i.e. Neo-Platonic] Trinity. Thus Theodoret, 'Plutinus,
and Numenius, explaining the sense of Plato, say, that he taught
Three principles beyond time and eternal. Good, Intellect, and the
Soul of all,' de AfFect. Cur. ii. p. 750. And so Plotinus himself, ' It
is as if one were to place Good as the centre, Intellect like an im-
moveable circle round, and Soul a moveable circle, and moveable
by appetite.' 4 Rnnead. iv. c. 16. vid. Porphyry in Cyril, contr.
Julian, viii. t. ult. p. 271. vid. ibid. i. p. 32. Plot. 3 Ennead. v. 2
and 3. Athan. 's testimony that the Platonists considered their
three uTroffTotreis all unoriginate is perhaps a singular one. In
5 Ettnead. iv. i. Plotinus says what seems contrary to it, r) S«
ipxr) ayfVrr)T05, speaking of his rayatiov. Yet Plato, quoted by
Theodoret, ibid. p. 749, speaks of eire apxriv e'ire opvas.
3 «7rei. niaAioTai, on /u.aAio-Ta, Orat. i. § 36. de Syn. § 21. fin.
oTav ixa\i(TTa, Apol. ad Const. 23. koX judAtoTa, de Syn. § 42, 54.
4 Cr. § 18, n. 8.
^'■ And so de Syn. § 46. 'we have on careful inquiry ascer-
tained, &c.' Again, 'I have acquainted myself on their account
[the Arians'] with the meaning of dyeVrjTOi'.' Orat. i. § 30. This
is remarkable, for Athan. was a man of liberal education, as his
Orat. contr. Gent, and de Incarn. shew, especially, his acquaint-
ance with the Platonic philosophy. Sulpicius too speaks of him
as a jurisconsultus, Sacr. Hist. ii. 50. S.Gregory Naz. says, that
he gave some attention, but not much, to the subjects of general
education, ruiv lyKvKkiiav, that he might not be altogether ig-
I70
DE DECRETIS, OR
different senses; philosophers say that it
means, first, ' what has not yet, but may, come
to be;' next, 'what neither exists, nor can
come into being ; ' and thirdly, ' what exists
indeed, but was neither originated nor had
origin of being, but is everlasting and in-
destructible 5.' Now perhaps they will wish
to pass over the first two senses, from the
absurdity which follows ; for according to the
first, things that already have come to be, and
things that are expected to come to be, are un-
originated; and the second is more absurd still ;
accordingly they will proceed to the third sense,
and use the word in it ; though here, in this
sense too, their irreligion will be quite as great.
For if by unoriginated they mean what has no
origin of being, nor is originated or created,
but eternal, and say that the Word of God is
contrary to this, who comprehends not the
craft of these foes of God? who but would
stone^ such madmen ? for, when they are
ashamed to bring forward again those first
phrases which they fabled, and which were
condemned, the wretches have taken another
way to signify them, by means of what they
call unoriginate. For if the Son be of things
originate, it follows, that He too came to be
from nothing ; and if He has an origin of
being, then He was not before His generation ;
and if He is not eternal, there was once when
He was not?.
norant, of what he nevertheless despised, Orat. 21. 6. In the
same way S. Basil, whose cultivation of mind none can doubt,
speaks slightingly of his own philosophical knowledge. He writes
of his 'neglecting his own weakness, and being utterly unexercised
in such disquisitions ;' contr. Euiioin. init. And so in de Sp. § 5.
he says, that 'they who have given time' to vain philosophy,
'divide causes into principal, cooperative,' &c. Elsewhere he
speaks of having ' expended much time on vanity, and wasted
nearly all his youth in the vain labour of pursuing the studies
of that wisdom which God has made foolishness,' Ep. 223. 2. In
truth, Christianity has a philosophy of its own. Thus in the com-
mencement of his Via Dux Anastasius says, ' It is a first point to
be understood, that the tradition of the Catholic Church does not
proceed upon, or_ follow, the philosophical definitions in all re-
spects, and especially as regards the mystery of Christ, and the
doctrine of the Trinity, but a certain rule of its own, evangelical
and apostolical.' p. 20.
5 Four senses of aye'i^TOf are enumerated, Orat. i. § 30.
I. What is not as yet, but is possible ; 2. what neither has bieen
nor can be ; 3. what exists, but has not come to be from any cause ;
4. what is not made, but is ever. Only two senses are specified in
the de Syn. § 46 and in these the question really lies ; i. what is,
but without a cause ; 2. uncreate.
* BaAAeVflcocrai/ jrapa Trairui/, Orat. ii. \ 28. An apparent allu-
sion to the punishment of blasphemy and idolatry under the Jewish
Law. vid. [Ex. xix. 13. and] reference to Ex. xxi. 17, in §27, note 2.
Thus, e.g. Nazianzeii : ' While I go up the mount with good heart,
that I may become within the cloud, and may hold converse with
God, for so God bids ; if there be any Aaron, let him go up with me
and stand near. And if there be any Nadab or Abihu, or of the
elders, let him go up, but stand far off, according to the measure of
his purification. . . . But if any one is an evil andsavage beast, and
quite incapable of science and theology ; let him stand off still
further, and depart from the moimt . or he will be stoned and
crushed ; for the wicked shall be miserably destroyed. For as
stones for the bestial are true words and strong. Whether he
be leopard, let him die spots and all,' &c. &c. Orat. 28. 2.
7 The Arians argued that the word unoriginate implied originate
or creature as its correlative, and therefore indirectly signified
Creator; so that the Son being not unoriginate, was not the
Creator. Athan. answers, that in the use of the word, whether
there be a Son does not come into the question. As the idea
of Father and Son does not include creation, so that of creator
ar d creature does not include generation ; and it would be as
29. If these are their sentiments they ought
to signify their heterodoxy in their own
phrases, and not to hide their perverseness
under the cloke of the Unoriginate. But in-
stead of this, the evil-minded men do all things
with craftiness like their father, the devil ;
for as he attempts to deceive in the guise of
others, so tliese have broached the term Un-
originate, that they might pretend to speak
piously of God, yet might cherish a concealed
blasphemy against the Lord, and under a
veil might teach it to others. However, on
the detecting of this sophism, what remains
to them? 'We have found another,' say
the evildoers ; and then proceed to add to
what they have said already, that Unori-
ginate means what has no author of being,
but stands itself in this relation to things
originated. Unthankful, and in truth deaf
to the Scriptures ! who do everything, and
say everything, not to honour God, but to
dishonour the Son, ignorant that he who
dishonours the Son, dishonours the Father.
For first, even though they denote God in
this way, still the Word is not proved to be
of things originated. For again, as being an
offspring of the essence of the Father, He
is of consequence with Him eternally. For
this name of offspring does not detract from
the nature of the Word, nor does Unoriginated
take its sense from contrast with the Son, but
with the things which come to be through the
Son; and as he who addresses an architect,
and calls him framer of house or city, does not
under this designation allude to the son who
is begotten from him, but on account of the
art and science which he displays in his work,
calls him artificer, signifying thereby that he is
not such as the things made by him, and while
he knows the nature of the builder, knows also
that he whom he begets is other than his
works ; and in regard to his son calls him
father, but in regard to his works, creator
and maker ; in like manner he who says in
this sense that God is unoriginate, names Him
from His works, signifying, not only that He is
not originated, but that He is maker of things
which are so ; yet is aware withal that the
Word is other than the things originate,
and alone a proper offspring of the Father,
through whom all things came to be and
consist ^
30. In like manner, when the Prophets
spoke of God as All-ruling, they did not so
name Him, as if the Word were included in
that All ; (for they knew that the Son was
illogical to infer that there are no creatures because there is a Son
as that there is no Son because there are creatures.
8 The whole of this passage is repeated in Orat. 1. 32. &c vid.
for this particular argument, Basil also, contr. Etinotn. i. 16.
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
171
other than things originated, and Sovereign
over them Himself, according to His likeness
to the Father); but because He is Ruler over
all things which through the Son He has
made, and has given the authority of all things
to the Son, and having given it, is Himself
once more the Lord of all things through
the Word. Again, when they called God, Lord
of the powers 9, they said not this as if the
Word was one of those powers, but because,
while He is Father of the Son, He is Lord
of the powers which through the Son have
come to be. For again, the Word too, as
being in the Father, is Lord of them all,
and Sovereign over all ; for all things, whatso-
ever the Father hath, are the Son's. This then
being the force of such titles, in like manner
let a man call God unoriginated, if it so please
him ; not however as if the Word were of ori-
ginated things, but because, as I said before,
God not only is not originated, but through
His proper Word is He the maker of things
which are so. For though the Father be
called such, still the Word is the Father's
Image, and one in essence with Him ; and
being Flis Image, He must be distinct from
things originated, and from everything ; for
whose Image He is, His property and like-
ness He hath : so that he who calls the
Father unoriginated and almighty, perceives in
the Unoriginated and the Almighty, His Word
and His Wisdom, which is the Son. But
these wondrous men, and prompt for irre-
ligion, hit upon the term Unoriginated, not as
caring for God's honour, but from malevolence
towards the Saviour ; for if they had regard to
honour and reverent language, it rather had
been right and good to acknowledge and to
call God Father, than to give Him this name ;
for in calling God unoriginated, they are, as
I said before, calling Him from things which
came to be, and as a Maker only, that so
they may imply the Word to be a work
after their own pleasure ; but he who calls
God Father, in Him withal signifies His Son
also, and cannot fail to know that, whereas
there is a Son, through this Son all things that
came to be were created.
31. Therefore it will be much more accurate
to denote God from the Son and to call Him
Father, than to name Him and call Him Un-
originated from His works only ; for the latter
term refers to the works that have come to
be at the will of God through the Word, but
the name of Father points out the proper
offspring from His essence. And whereas the
Word surpasses things originated, by so much
and more also doth calling God Father surpass
9 i.e. of hosts.
the calling Him Unoriginated; for the latter is
non-scriptural and suspicious, as it lias various
senses; but the former is simple and scriptural,
and more accurate, and alone implies the
Son. And 'Unoriginated' is a word of the
Greeks who know not the Son : but * Father '
has been acknowledged and vouchsafed by
our Lord ; for He knowing Himself whose
Son He was, said, * I in the Father and the
Father in Me^;' and, 'He that hath seen Me
hath seen the Father ; ' and, ' I and the Father
are one"*;' but nowhere is He found to call
the Father Unoriginated. Moreover, when He
teaches us to pray, He says not, ' When ye
pray, say, O God Unoriginated,' but rather,
'When ye pray, say, Our Father, which art
in heavens.' And it was His Will, that the
Summary of our faith should have the same
bearing. For He has bid us be baptized,
not in the name of Unoriginate and Originate,
not into the name of Uncreate and Creature,
but into the name of Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit +, for with such an initiation we too are
made sons verily s, and using the name of
the Father, we acknowledge from that name
* John xiv. 9, 10. " lb. x. 30. 3 Matt. vi. a.
4 And so S. Basil, ' Our faith was not in Framer and Work, but
in Father and Son were we sealed through the grace in baptism.'
contr. Eutiom. ii. 22. And a somewhat similar passage occurs
Orat. ii. § 41.
5 vi07roioviu.69a a\-q6S>i. This strong term 'truly' or 'verily'
seems taken from such passages as speak of the 'grace and truth'
of the Gospel, John i. 12 — 17. Again S. Basil says, that we are
sons, Kvpioii, ' properly,' and TrpioTios ' primarily,' in opposition to
TpoTfiKw?, 'figuratively,' contr. Eunotn. ii. 23. S. Cyril too says,
that weare sons ' naturally ' ^vaiKW as well as Kara X'^P"'> ^'d ■ Suicer
Thesaur. v. uios. i. 3. Of these words, oAijSws, (^hktikms, Kupiajs,
and 7rp(OT(o5, the first two are commonly reserved for our Lord ;
e.g. TOc aA.r)0ws vioi/, Orat. ii. § 37- Tj/utets utol, ovk (09 kKsXvo'i 4>v<Tei.
Kal a\r)0ei'a, iii. § 19. Hilary seems to deny us the title of ' proper'
sons ; lie Trin. xii. 15 ; but his ' proprium ' is a translation of iSiov,
not KupiMs- And when Justin says of Christ 6 /xdi/os Aeyo/xej/os
Kwpiojs iiibs, Apol. ii. 6. Kvpi'tos seems to be used in reference to the
word Kvptos, Lord, which he has just been using, KvpioXoyilv being
sometimes used by him as others in the sense of ' naming as Lord,
like SeoAoyeii'. vid. Trypk. 56. There is a passage in Justin*
ad Grcec. 21. where he (or the writer) when speaking of eyu) ei/uii
6 mv, uses the word in the same ambiguous sense ; ovhkv ya(>
ovofi-a. ku\ 6eov KvpioAoyeicrfloi hvva.Tov, 21 ; as if Ku'ptos, the Lord,
by which ' I am' is translated, were a sort of symbol of that proper
name of God which cannot be given. But to return ; the tr,ue
doctrine then is, that, whereas there is a primary and secondary
sense in which the word Son is used, primary when it has its
formal meaning of continuation of nature, and secondary when it
is used nominally, or for an external resemblance to the first
meaning, it is applied to the regenerate, not in the secondary
sense, but in the primary. S. Basil and S. Gregory Nyssen con-
sider Son to be 'a term of relationship according to nature' (vid.
supr. § 10, note i.), also Basil in Psalm xxviii. i. The actual pre-
sence of the Holy Spirit in the regenerate in substance (vid. Cyril,
Dial. 7. p. 638.) constitutes this relationship of nature; and hence
after the words quoted from S. Cyril in the beginning of the note,
in which he says, that we are sons, <jbuo-iKus, he proceeds, ' natur-
ally, because tue are iti Hijn, and in Hirn alone." vid. Athan.'s
words which follow in the text at the end of § 31. And hence
Nyssen lays down, as a received truth, that ' to none does the
term " proper," Kvpiuirarov, apply, but to one in whom the name
responds with truth to the nature,' contr. Eimom. iii. p. 123. And
he also implies, p. 117, the intimate association of our sonship with
Christ's, when he connects together regeneration with our Lord's
eternal generation, neither being 6td Traflous, or, of the will of the
flesh. If it be asked, what the distinctive words are whichare
incommunicably the Son's, since so much is man's, it is obvious
to answer, ii6ios wios and /xoi/oyei'T|s, which are in Scripture, and
the symbols ' of the essence,' and 'one in essence,' of the Council ;
and this is the value of the Council's phrases, that, while they
guard the Son's divinity, they allow full scope, without risk of en-
trenching on it, to the Catholic doctrine of the fulness of the
Christian privileges, vid. supr. § 19, note.
1/2
DE DECRETIS, Etc.
the Word in the Father. But if He wills that
we should call His own Father our Father,
we must not on that account measure our-
selves with the Son according to nature, for it
is because of the Son that the Father is so
called by us ; for since the Word bore our
body and came to be in us, therefore by
reason of the Word in us, is God called our
Father. For the Spirit of the Word in us
names through us His own Father as ours,
which is the Apostle's meaning when he says,
* God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son
into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father^.'
32. But perhaps being refuted as touching
the term Unoriginate also, they will say ac-
cording to their evil nature, ' It behoved, as
regards our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
also, to state from the Scriptures what is there
written of Him, and not to introduce non-
scriptural expressions.' Yes, it behoved, say
1 too; for the tokens of truth are more exact as
drawn from Scripture, than from other sources ^ ;
but the ill disposition and the versatile and
crafty irreligion of Eusebius and his fellows,
compelled the Bishops, as I said before, to
publish more distinctly the terms which over-
threw their irreligion ; and what the Council
did write has already been shewn to have
an orthodox sense, while the Arians have been
shewn to be corrupt in their phrases, and
evil in their dispositions. The term Un-
originate, having its own sense, and admitting
of a religious use, they nevertheless, accord-
ing to their own idea, and as they will, use for
the dishonour of the Saviour, all for the sake
6 Gal. iv. 6.
7 Cf. contr. Gent. init. Iticam, 57. ad Ep. jEg, 4. Vit,
Ant. 16. And passim in Athan.
of contentiously maintaining, like giants^,
their fight with God. But as they did not
escape condemnation when they adduced these
former phrases, so when they misconceive
of the Unoriginated which in itself admits
of being used well and religiously, they
were detected, being disgraced before all,
and their heresy everywhere proscribed. This
then, as I could, have I related, by way of
explaining what was formerly done in the
Council ; but I know that the contentious
among Christ's foes will not be disposed
to change even after hearing this, but will
ever search about for other pretences, and for
others again after those. For as the Prophet
speaks, ' If the Ethiopian change his skin, or
the leopard his spots 9, then will they be
willing to think religiously, who have been
instructed in iiTeligion. Thou however, be-
loved, on receiving this, read it by thyself;
and if thou approvest of it, read it also to the
brethren who happen to be present, that
they too on hearing it, may welcome the
Council's zeal for the truth, and the exactness
of its sense ; and may condemn that of
Christ's foes, the Arians, and the futile pre-
tences, which for the sake of their irreligious
heresy they have been at the pains to frame
among themselves ; because to God and the
Father is due the glory, honour, and worship
with His co-existent Son and Word, together
with the All-holy and Life-giving Spirit, now
and unto endless ages of ages. Amen.
8 And so, Orat. ii. § 32, (cara tous ixvBevofievovi yiyavra?. And
so Nazianzen, Oral. 43. 26. speaking of the disorderly Bishops
during the Arian ascendancy. Also Socr. v. 10 Sometimes the
Scripture giants are spoken of, sometimes the mythologicaL
9 Jer. xiii. 23. ,
DE SENTENTIA DIONYSIl.
The following tract, like the last, is a letter to a person engaged in discussion with Arians,
who were openly finding fault with the Definition of Nicaea, and especially with the word
Co-essential (§ 19). Montfaucon suggests that both epistles were addressed to the same
person, the de Decreiis (% 25) having as it were challenged the Arians to cite passages
from Dionysius on behalf of their own doctrine, whereupon their opponent came back to
Athanasius with a request for further help. But the language of the first sentence of
our present tract seems to imply that Athanasius had not previously heard of the discussions
in question. However, slender as such grounds are, the tract furnishes no more decisive
indication of date. (On certain expressions which might seem to carry the date back to the
lifetime of Arius, see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 7.)
Dionysius 'the Great,' Bishop of Alexandria 233—265, was a pupil of Origen (Eus. IT. E.
vi, 29), and equally distinguished as a ruler of the Church and as a theologian. In all
the controversies of his age (the lapsed, rebaptism, Easter, Paul of Samosata, Sabellianism,
the authorship of the Apocalypse) his influence made itself felt, and his writings were very
numerous (Westcott in D. C. B. i. p. 851 sq. ; a good account of Dionysius in vol. I. of this
series, p. 281, note). The most celebrated controversy in which he was involved was
that which, a century later, gave rise to the tract before us.
About the period when personal attacks on the Nicene leaders began to be exchanged
for overt objections to the Nicene Definitions, the claim was freely made that 'the fathers'
had been condemned by the latter : in • other words, that they had held with the Arians
(see below § I, aet [ikv Trpocpda-ns . . . . vvv Se Koi tialBdWeiv roiis rraTepas TeToKfirjKaa-i). Accord-
ingly we find Athanasius at about the same date, viz. early in the sole reign of Con-
stantius, vindicating on the one hand the work of the Council, on the other the orthodox
reputation of Dionysius. The Arians found material for their appeal to the latter in a
letter addressed by him to certain bishops in Pentapolis, called Ammon and Euphranor.
Whether or no Sabellius had been a native of that province, at any rate his doctrine was
at that time so popular there ' that the Son of God was scarcely any longer preached in the
Churches.' Exercising the right of supervision over those districts which had already become
vested by prescription in the Alexandrian See, Dionysius wrote to Ammon, Bishop of Berenice,
(Euseb. H. E. vii. 26, who enumerates three several letters to Ammon, Telesphorus, and Eu-
phranor, and a fourth to Ammon and Euporus : he also refers to his letters to Dionysius of
Rome : Montfaucon is therefore scarcely fair in charging Eusebius with suppressing the episode
' ne verbum quidem de hac historia fecerit ! ') insisting on the distinctness of the Sen from
the Father. In doing so he used strong expressions akin to the language of Origen on the
subordination of the Son. These expressions were at once objected to by certain orthodox
churchmen (§ 13, it is not clear whether they belonged to Pentapolis or Alexandria), who
without consulting Dionysius went to Rome (about 260), and spoke against him in the presence
of his namesake, the Roman Bishop. The latter, true to the traditions of his See sine?
the time of Callistus (see Hipp. Philos IX. vii. UQeoi eare), while steering clear of Sabellianism,
was especially jealous of error in the opposite direction. Accordingly he assembled a synod
(de Synod. 44), and' drew up a letter to Alexandria, in which he rebuked firstly the Sabellians,
but secondly and more fully those who separate the Godhead or speak of the Son as a work,
including under this category certain unnamed catechists and teachers of Alexandria {^De Deer,
26). At the same time he wrote personally to Dionysius, informing him that he was accus'rd
174 DE SENTENTIA DIONYSII.
of maintaining the opinions in question. In answer to this letter, Dionysius of Alexandria
drew up a treatise in four books, entitled ' Refutation and Defence,' and addressed to his
namesake of Rome, in which he explained his language, and stated his belief in a manner
which put an end to the controversy. He had been charged with maintaining that the
Son was made, that He was not eternal (ol'k aft v" « ^f"? T^ar-qp, ovk de\ rjv 6 vios, . . . . ovk rjv nplv
yevvijdT], aXX' ^v irore ore ovK rjv k.t.X. § 14), that he denied the co-essentiality (oixoova-iov) of the Son,
and separated Him from the Father (§§ i6, i8, cf. § 4, ^evov kot' ova-lav k.tX.). In his
Refutation and Defence, Dionysius admits the use of these expressions, withdraws the first
(§ 15, Hne i), and admits the propriety of the ofwova-inv, although he himself prefers Scriptural
language (§. 18. The section shews the unfixed use of the word. Dionysius had formerly
used ovala in the sense of nparr) ova-'ia, nearly as equivalent to vn-oWao-ts : but now he clearly
takes it as bevrepa oiaia, indicative not of Person but of Nature). That the Son was made, he
explains as an inadequate formula, the word being applicable (in one of its many senses) to the
relation of son to father (§ 20. The defence of Athanasius, that Dionysius referred to the
Human Nature of Christ, is scarcely tenable. It is not supported by what Dionysius himself
says, rather the contrary : and if his language did not refer to the Trinity, where would be its
relevancy against Sabellianism ?). The words rjv ore ovk ^v, and ovk ^v np\v yewtjOrj, he does not
explain, but professes his belief in the eternal union of the Word with the Father (§§ 24, 25).
Lastly, he repudiates the charge of dividing the Holy Trinity, or of mentioning Father
and Son as though separate Beings: When I mention the Father, I have already mentioned the
Son, before I pronounce His Name (§ 17, the closing words of the section are a complete
formula of agreement with all that his Roman namesake could possibly require of him).
That Dionysius in his ' ' Refutation and Defence ' merely restated, and did not (kot
oiKovofiiav) alter, his theological position is open to no doubt. Athanasius, not the Arians,
had the right to claim him as his own. He is clearly speaking optima fide when he deprecates
the pressing of statements in which he had give'n expression to one side only, and that
the less essential side, of his convictions. At the same time we cannot but see that the
Arians had good prima facie ground for their appeal. Here were their special formulae,
those anathematised at Nicaea, r\v ttots ore ovk rjv and the rest, adopted, and the Sfioova-iov
implicitly rejected, by the most renowned bishop Alexandria had yet had. (Newman, in de
Deer. 26, note 7, fails to appreciate the reference to the language of Dion. Alex.) Moreover it
is only fair to admit that not only in language, but in thought also, Athanasius had advanced
upon his predecessors of the Alexandrian School. The rude shock of Arianism had shewn
him and the other Nicene leaders the necessity of greater consistency than had characterised
the theology of Origen and his school, a consistency to be gained only by breaking with
one side of it altogether. While on the one hand Origen held fast to the Godhead of the
Logos (kot ovaiav eVrt 6e6s), and tO His COCternity with the Father (ael ytwaTcu 6 amrrip xmo rov
-narpoiy and See de Deer. § 27); he had yet, using ovaia in its 'first' sense, spoken of Him
as hepos Kar ova-lav rov narpos (de Orat. 1 5), and placed him, after the manner of Philo, as
an intermediary between God and the Universe. He had spoken of the unity of the Father
and the Son as moral i^Cels. viii. 12, r^ op.ovoia km ttj a-vp(f)covla), insisted upon the vnepoxji of
the Father (i.e. ' subordination ' of the Son), and spoken {De Orat.) as though the highest
worship of all were to be reserved for the Father (Jerome ascribes still stronger language to
him). Yet there is no real doubt that, as regards the core of the question, Athanasius and not
his opponents is the true successor of Origen. The essential difference between Athanasius
and the ' Conservatives ' of the period following the great council consisted in the fact that
the former saw clearly what the latter failed to realise, namely the insufficiency of the formulae
of the third century to meet the problem of the fourth. We may then, without disparagement
to Dionysius, admit that he was not absolutely consistent in his language ; that he failed
to distinguish the ambiguities which beset the words olaia^ vnoaraaLs, and even noulv and
DE SENTENTIA DIONYSII. 175
yevtaSai, and that he used language {oIk rjv nph yew^Qr) and the h'ke) which we, with our minda
cleared by the Arian controversy, cannot reconcile with the more deliberate and guarded
statements of the 'Refutation and Defence'.'
The controversy of the two Dionysii has another interesting side, as bearing upon the
means then employed for dealing with questions affecting the Church as a whole, — and
in particular upon the position of the Roman Church as the natural referee in such
questions. (Cf. Prolcgg. ch. iv. § 4.) This is not the place for a general discussion of
the question, or for an attempt to trace its history previous to the case before us. But
it should be noted, firstly, that when the Pentapolite (?) opponents of Dionysius desire
a lever against him, their first resource is not a council of local bishops, but the Roman
Church : secondly, that the Roman bishop takes up the case, and writes to his Alexandrian
namesake for an explanation : thirdly, that the explanation asked for is promptly given.
Unfortunately the fragment of the Roman letter preserved to us by Athanasius tells us
nothing of the form of the intervention, whether it was the request of one co-trustee to another
for an explanation of the latter's action in a matter concerning their common trust, or whether
it was coupled with any assumption of jurisdiction at all like that involved in the letter of the
Bishop of Alexandria to those of Libya. At any rate, the latter alternative has no positive
evidence in our documents; and the fragments of the Refutation and Defence 'shew
the most complete and resolute independence. There is nothing in the narrative of Athanasius
which implies that the Alexandrine Bishop recognised or that the Roman Bishop claimed any
dogmatic authority as belonging to the Imperial See.' The letter of Dionysius of Rome
is certainly highly characteristic of the indifference to theological reasoning and the close
adherence to the rule of faith as the authoritative solution of all questions of doctrine which
marks the genius of Rome as contrasted with that of Alexandria (see Gore, The Church and
the Ministry, ch. i. sub fin., and Harnack, Dg. i. 686, who observes upon the striking family
likeness between this letter and that of Leo to Flavian, and of Agatho to the Sixth Ecumenical
Council). Lastly, the Roman Church, which never troubled about a precedent adverse to
her imperial instinct, never forgot one which favoured it. The intervention of Dionysius was
treasured up in her memory, and, when the time came, fully exploited {sitpr. p. 113, note 3,
where the note distinguishes somewhat too carefully between the ' Pope * of Rome and the
* Bishop,' TrdTrar, of Alexandria).
The tract of Athanasius, with his extracts in de Deer, and de Syn., tell us all that we know of
the history of this important controversy. Dionysius had previously (Eus. If. E. vii. 6) had
some correspondence with Xystus, the previous Bishop of Rome, on the subject of the Sabellian
teaching current in the Pentapolis. He was in fact during his episcopate in constant com-
munication with Rome and with the other important churches of the Christian World. His
letters are much used in the sixth and seventh books of the History of Eusebius, to whom we
are indebted for most of our knowledge of his writings.
The general arrangement of the tract is as follows : —
§§ I — 4 are prefatory, the fourth section broadly indicates the line of the defence. §§ 5 — 12 deal with the
incriminated passages : Athan. gives the history of tliem, and lays stress on their incomplete presentation of the
belief of Dionysius, as having been written for a special purpose, — as may also be said of much of the language
of the Apostles. But even in themselves the expressions of Dionysius are orthodox, referring (as Athanasius
claims) to Christ as man. In §§ 13 — 23 he turns to the Refutation and Defence, from which he makes copious
extracts, bringing on^ the diametrical opposition between Dionysius and the Arians. In §§ 24, 25 the anti-Ariaa
doctrine of Dionysius is summed up, and § 26 recapitulates the main points of §§ 5 — 12. He concludes (§ 27)
by claiming a verdict upon the evidence, and urging upon the Arians the alternative of abandoning their error,
or of being left with the devil as their only partisan.
» It may be added that the letter to Paul of Samosata quoted
by Bull, Def. III. iv. 3, Petavius, Trin. I. iv. is not genuine.
Posterity, which enveloped the name of Origen with storms of
controversy, did not entirely spare his pupil : Basil (Ep. 41)
taxes him with sowing the first seeds of the Anomcean heresy,
Gennadius (^Eccl. Dogm. iv.) calls him ' Fons Arii.'
ON THE OPINION OF DIONYSIUS.
Letter of Athanasius concerning Dionysius,
Bishop of Alexandria, shewing that he too Avas
against the Anan heresy, Hke the Synod of
Nicfea, and that the Arians in vain libel him
in claiming him as on their side.
I. The Arian appeal to Dionysius a slander
against him.
You have been tardy in informing me
of the present argument between yourself
and the enemies of Christ; for even before
your courtesy wrote to me, I had made dili-
gent enquiry, and learnt about the matter,
of which I heard with pleasure. I approved
of the right opinion entertained by your
piety concerning our blessed fathers, while on
the present occasion I once more recognise
the unreasonableness of the Arian madmen.
For whereas their heresy has no ground in
reason, nor express proof from holy writ, they
were always resorting to shameless subterfuges
and plausible fallacies. But they have now
also ventured to slander the fathers : and this
is not inconsistent, but fully of a piece with
their perversity. For what marvel is it if men
who have presumed to ' take counsel against the
Lord and against His Christ,' are also vilifying
the blessed Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, as
a partisan and accomplice of their own ? For
if they are pleased to extol a man, for the sup-
port of their own heresy, even if they call
him blessed, they cast upon him no slight af-
front, but a great one indeed ; just like robbers
or men of evil Hfe who, when branded for their
own practices, claim sober persons as being
of their number, and thus defame their sober
character.
2. The Arian position inconsistent with Holy
Scripture.
If then they have confidence in their opi-
nions and statements, let them broach their
heresy nakedly, and shew from it if they think
they have any religious argument whether from
Scripture, or from human reason, in their
defence. But if they have nothing of the
kind, let them hold their peace. For they will
find nothing from any quarter except the greater
condemnation of themselves. Firstly from the
Scriptures, in that John says, ' In the begin-
ning was the Word ; ' whereas they say, ' he
was not before he was begotten : ' while David
sings, in the character of the Father, ' my
heart uttered a good Word' (Ps. xlv. i, LXX.),
whom they allege to be in thought only, and
originated from nothing. Furtlier, whereas
John once more says in the Gospel (i. 3), ' all
things were made by Him, and without Him
was not anything made,' while Paul writes,
' there is one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are
all things' (i Cor. viii. 6), and elsewhere, 'all
things were created in Him ' (Col. i. 16), how
will they have the boldness (or rather how will
they escape disgrace) to oppose the sayings of
the saints, by saying that the artificer of all
things is a creature, and that He is a created
thing in whom all things created have come
into being and subsist ? Nor, secondly, is any
religious argument from human reason left
them in their defence. For what man, Greek
or barbarian, presumes to call one, whom he
confesses to be God, a created thing, or to say
that he was not before he was made ? or what
man, when he has lieard Him whom he be-
lieves to be God alone say, ' This is My be-
loved Son' (Mat. iii. ry), and 'my heart uttered
a good Word,' will venture even to say that
the Word out of the heart of God has come
into being out of nothing ? or that the Son"
is a created thing and not the very offspring
of Him that speaks ? or again, who that hears
Him whom he believes to be Lord and Saviour
say, ' I am in the Father and the Father in
Me,' and *I and the Father are one' (John
xiv. 10, X. 30), will presume to put asunder
what He has made one and maintained indi-
visible ? •
3. The Arians appeal to Dionysius as the
Jews did to Abraham: but with equally
little reason.
Seeing this themselves, accordingly, and
having no confidence in their own position,
ON THE OPINION OF DIONYSIUS.
177
against
religious
men.
they utter falsehoods
But it would be better for them, when iso-
lated, and perceiving that under examination
they were at a loss and put to silence on all
sides, rather to have turned back from the way
of error and not to claim men whom they do
not know, lest being confuted by them also they
should carry oil all the more disgrace. But
perhaps they do not wish ever to depart from
this wickedness of theirs ; for they emulate this
characteristic of Caiaphas and his party, just
as they have learned from them to deny
Christ. For they too, when the Lord had
done so many works, by which He shewed Him-
self to be the Christ the Son of the Living
God, and being convicted by him, from thence-
forth in all things thinking and speaking
against the Scriptures, and unable for a mo-
ment to face the proofs against themselves,
betuok themselves to the patriarch with the
words, 'We have Abraham to our father'
(Matt. iii. 9), thus thinking to cloke their
own unreasonableness. But neither did they
gain anything by these words, nor will these
men, by speaking of Dionysius, be able to
escape the guilt of the others. For the Lord
convicted the latter of their wicked deeds by
the words, ' This did not Abraham ' (John viii.
40), while the same truth again shall convict
these men of their impiety and falsehood.
For the Bishop Dionysius did not hold with
Arius, nor was he ignorant of the truth. On
the contrary, both the Jews of that day,
and the new Jews of the present day inherited
their mad enmity against Christ from their
father the devil. Well then, a strong proof
that here once more these men are saying
what is not true, but are maligning the man,
is the fact that neither was he condemned
and expelled from the church for impiety by
other bishops, as these men have been from
the clergy, nor did he of his own accord leave
the church as the partisan of a heresy, but
died honourably within it, and his memory is
retained and regi"stered along with the fathers
to the present day. For if he had held with
these men, or not vindicated what he had
written, without doubt he too would have
been treated as these men have been.
4. The Arian appeal to Dionysius based upon an
isolated fragment of his teaching to the tiegled
of the rest.
And indeed this would sufifice for the entire
refutation of the new Jews, who both deny the
Lord and slander the fathers and attempt to
deceive all Christians. But since they think they
have, in certain parts of the bishop's letter, pre-
texts for their slander of him, come let us look at
VOL. IV.
these also, so that even from them the futility of
the reasoning may be exposed, and they may
at length cease from their blasphemy against
the Lord, and at any rate with tlie soldiers
(Mat. xxvii. 54), when they see creation wit-
nessing, confess that truly He is the Son of God,
and not one of created things. They say then
that in a letter the blessed Dionysius has said,
' that the Son of God is a creature and made,
and not His own by nature, but in essence
alien from the Father, just as the husbandman
is from the vine, or the ship-builder from the
boat, for that, being a creature, He was not
before He came to be.' Yes, he wrote it, and
we too admit that his letter runs thus. But
just as he wrote this, he also wrote very many
other letters, and they ought to consult those
also ; in order that the faith of the man may
be made clear from them all, and not from
this alone. For the art of a ship-builder who
has constructed many triremes is judged of not
from one, but from all. If tlierefore he simply
wrote this letter of which they speak as an
exposition of his faith, or if this was his only
letter, let them accuse him to their hearts*
content, — for this suggestion really amounts to
an accusation, — but if he was led to Avrite as
he did by the occasion and the person ^ con-
cerned, while he also wrote other letters, de-
fending himself where he had been suspected,
in that case they ought not to have neglected
the reasons, and hastily cast a slur upon the
man, lest they should appear to be hunting
merely stray expressions, while passing over
the truth to be found in his other letters.
For a husbandman also treats trees of the
same sort now in one way now in another,,
according to the character of the soil he has tO'
do with : nor would any one blame him be-
cause he cuts one, grafts another, plants an-
other, and another again takes up. On the
contrary, upon learning the reason, he all the
more admires the versatility of his skill. Well
then, unless they have consulted the writing
superficially let them state the main subject of
the letter ; for so the malignity and unscrupu-
lous character of their design will come out.
But since they do not know, or are ashamed to
state it, we must state it ourselves.
5. The occasion of Dionysius' writing against
the Sahellians.
At that date certain of the Bishops in
Pentapolis, Upper Libya, held with S^bellius.
And they were so successful with their opi-
nions that the Son of God was scarcely any
longer preached in the churches. Dionysius
npoa-ionov '. but see also Newman's note 2 on de Deer. % 14.
178
DE SENTENTIA DIONYSIL
having heard of this, as he had the charge '
of those churches, sends men to counsel the
guilty ones to cease from their error, but as
they did not cease, but waxed more shameless
in their impiety, he was compelled to meet
their shameless conduct by writing the said
letter, and to expound from the Gospels the
human nature of the Saviour, in order that
since those men waxed bolder in denying the
Son, and in ascribing His human actions to the
Father, he accordingly by demonstrating that
it was the Son and not the Father that was
made man for us, might persuade the ignorant
persons that the Father is not a Son, and so by
degrees lead them up to the true Godhead of
the Son, and the knowledge of the Father.
This is the main subject of the letter, and this
is the reason why he wrote it, by reason of
those who so shamelessly had chosen to alter
the true faith.
6. Dionyshis did not express his full opinion
in the passages alleged.
Well then, what is there in common be-
tween the heresy of Arius and the opinion of
Dionysius : or why is Dionysius to be called
like Arius, when they differ widely ? For the
one is a teacher of the Catholic Church, while
the other has been the inventor of a new
heresy. And while Arius to expound his own
error wrote a Thaleia in an effeminate and
ridiculous style like Sotades the Egyptian,
Dionysius not only wrote other letters also,
but composed a defence of himself upon the
suspicious points, and came out clearly as of
right opinions. If then his writings are incon-
sistent, let them not draw him to their side,
for on this assumption he is not worthy of
credit. But if, when he had written his letter
to Ammonius, and fallen under suspicion, he
made his defence so as to betters what he had
previously said, but did so without changing,
it must be evident that he wrote the suspected
passages in a qualified sense*. But what is
" See Epiphanius, Har. Ixviii. i. The arrangement is recog-
nised as one of old standing in the sixth canon of Nicaea, ' Let the
old ctistoms which exist in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis remain
in force, namely that the Bishop of Alexandria should have au-
thority over all these regions ; since this is also customary for the
Bishop of Rome. Likewise also at Antioch and in the other pre-
fectures (it is decreed) that their prerogatives should be maintained
to those churches.' The canon points to the natural explanation
of the arrangement : the bishops of the capitals began from a very
early date to exercise a loosely defined but gradually strengthening
supervision over those of the rest of the province. In particular,
they came to exercise a veto (and latterly more than a veto) upon
the appointments to the provincial sees (et ns x<>'P'S ■yi'to/xrjs, ib.).
The bishops of Alexandria as well as Rome had even at this date
acquired #omething of the rank of secular potentates (Suvacrreia,
Socr.y'xx. ii, ijSr) iraAat), but not to the extent to which it went later
on (ib. 7. and supr. Apol. Ar.% 9).
3 SepaTreveiv. For the word, cf. Hatch, Hibb. Led. p. 80 note.
4 /car' otKovofAi'ac, as below § 24. Cf^ de Deer. § 25, note 5,
The word o\Kovo\i.ia. has two main senses in Athanasius,- both
derived from the classical sense of management or dispensation,
the adapting of means toward an end. (i) As in the present pas-
sage (cf. Origen in Migne XL p. 77 b, oiKOfo/oiiKus) : a use which
written or done in such a sense men have no
business to construe maliciously, or wrest each
one to a meaning of his own. For even a
physician frequently in accordance with his
knowledge applies to the wounds he has to
deal with, remedies which to some seem un-
suitable, with a view to nothing but health.
In like manner it is the practice of a wise
teacher to arrange and deliver his lessons
with reference to the characters of his pupils,
until he has brought them over to the way of
perfection.
7. The language of the Apostles needs similar
caution in particular passages.
But if they accuse the blessed man (for the
arguments of the Arians about him are in fact
accusations against him) simply for writing
thus, what will they do when they hear even the
great and blessed Apostles in the Acts, firstly
Peter saying (Acts ii. 22), *Ye men of Israel
hear these words : Jesus of Nazareth, a man
approved of God unto us by mighty works
and wonders and signs which God did by Him
in the midst of you, as ye yourselves know :
Him, being delivered up by the determinate
counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the
hand of lawless men did crucify and slay ; '
and again (ib. iv. 10), * In the name of Jesus
Christ of Nazareth, Whom ye crucified. Whom
God raised from the dead, even in Him doth
this man stand here before you whole;' and
Paul, relating (ib. xiii. 22) in Antioch of
Pisidia how God, ' when He had removed
Saul, raised up David to be king ; to whom
also He bare witness and said, I have found
David the Son of Jesse, a man after my heart,
who shall do My will. Of this man's seed
hath God according to promise brought unto
Israel a Saviour, Jesus ; ' and again at Athens
(ib. xvii. 30), 'The times of ignorance there-
fore God overlooked ; but now He commandeth
men that they should all everywhere repent: in-
asmuch as He hath appointed a day in the which
He will judge the world in' righteousness by
means of the man whom He hath ordained,
whereof He hath given assurance unto all
men, in that He hath raised Him from the
dead;' or Stephen, the great martyr, when
he says, ' Behold I see the heavens opened
and the Son of man standing on the right
hand of God.' Why, it is high time for them •
to brazen it out (for there is nothing too
is the lineal ancestor of the ill-sounding word ' economy ' as a term
in casuistry ; (2) as applied to the Incarnation of our Lord, re-
garded as the Dispensation, the Divine Method for the salvation of
mankind. This use is very frequent in St. Athanasius (compare
Ep. Mg, 2, and Orat. ii. 11), and in earlier Fathers from Ignatius
[Eph. 18 iKvo(j>opridrj vtto Maptas /car' olKovofJ-Cav, where Lighttoot
refers to a more detailed history of the word in his unpublished
note on Eph. i. 10) downwards (references in Soph. Lex. t.v.).
ON THE OPINION OF DIONYSIUS.
179
<1anng for them) and claim that the very
apostles held with Arius : for they declare
Christ to have been a man from Nazareth, and
passible.
8. The Apostles spoke of Christ as man, hut
also as God.
Well then, such being the imaginations of
these men, did the Apostles, since they used
the above language, regard Christ as only a
man and nothing more? God forbid. The
very idea is out of the question. But here too
they have acted as wise master-builders and
stewards of the mysteries of God. And they
have good reason for it. For inasmuch as the
Jews of that day, in error themselves and
misleading the Gentiles, thought that the
Christ was coming as a mere man of the seed
of David, after the likeness of the rest of the
children of David's descent, and would neither
believe that He was God nor that the Word
was made flesh ; for this reason it was with
much wisdom that the blessed Apostles began
by proclaiming to the Jews the human charac-
teristics of the Saviour, in order that by fully
persuading them frorh visible facts, and from
miracles which were done, that the Christ was
come, they might go on to lead them up to
faith in His Godhead, by shewing that the
works He had done were not those of a man,
but of God. Why, Peter, who calls Christ
a man capable of suffering, at once went on
(Act. iii. 15) to add, 'He is Prince of Life,'
while in the Gospel he confesses, ' Thou art
the Christ, the Son of the living God.' But
in his Epistle he calls Him Bishop of souls,
and Lord both of himself and of angels and
Powers. Paul, again, who calls Christ a man
of the seed of David, wrote thus to the
Hebrews (i. 3), ' Who being the brightness of
His glory and the very image of His subsistence,'
and to the Philippians (ii. 6), * Who being in
the form of God counted it not a prize to
be on an equality with God.' But what can
it mean to call him Prince of Life, Son of God,
brightness, exj^ress image, on an equality with
God, Lord, and Bishop of souls, if not that in
the body He was Word of God, by whom all
things were made, and is as indivisible from
the Father as is the brightness from the
light?
9. Dionystus must be interpreted like the
Apostles.
And Dionysius accordingly acted as he
learned from the Apostles. For as the heresy
of Sabellius was creeping on, he was com-
pelled, as I said before, to write the aforesaid
letter, and to hurl at them what is said of the
Saviour in reference to His manhood and His
humiliation, so as to bar them by reason of
His human attributes from saying that the
Father was a son, and so render easier for
them the teaching concerning the Godhead of
the Son, when in his other letters he calls
Him from the Scriptures the word, wisdom,
power, breath (Wisd. vii. 25), and brightness
of the Father. For example, in the letters
written in his defence, speaking as I have
described, he waxes bold in the faith, and
in piety towards Christ. As then the Apostles
are not to be accused by reason of their human
language about the Lord, — because the Lord
has been made man, — but are all the more
worthy of admiration for their wise reserve
and seasonable teaching, so Dionysius is no
Arian on account of his letter to Euphranor
and Ammonius against Sabellius. For even
if he did use humble phrases and examples,
yet they too are from the Gospels, and his
justification for them is the Saviour's coming
in the flesh, on account of which not only
these things, but others like them are written.
For just as He is Word of God, so afterwards
' the Word was made flesh ; ' and while ' in
the beginning was the Word,' the Virgin
at the consummation of the ages conceived,
and the Lord has become man. And He who
is indicated by both statements is one Person,
for 'the Word was made flesh.' But the '
expressions used about His Godhead, and
His becoming man, are to be interpreted with
discrimination and suitably to the particular
context. And he that writes of the human
attributes of the Word knows also what con-
cerns His Godhead : and he who expounds
concerning His Godhead is not ignorant of
what belongs to His coming in the flesh : but
discerning each as a skilled and ' approved
money-changer^,' he will walk in the straight
way of piety ; when therefore he speaks of His
weeping, he knows that the Lord, having
become man, while he exhibits his human
character in weeping, as God raises up
Lazarus ; and He knows that He used to
hunger and thirst physically, while divinely
He fed five thousand persons from five loaves ;
and knows that while a human body lay in the
tomb, it was raised as God's body by the
Word Himself,
10. The expressions of Dionysius claimed vy
the Arians refer to Christ as Man.
Dionysius, teaching exactly thus, in his
letter to Euphranor and Ammonius wrote in
view of Sabellius concerning the human pre-
4 See Westcott, Introditciion to the GosfeU, Appendix C, ?.
N 2
i8o
DE SENTENTIA DIONYSII.
dicates of the Saviour. For to the latter class
belong the sayings, 'I am the Vine and My
father the Husbandman ' (Joh. xv. i), and
' faithful to Him that made Him' (Heb. iii. 2),
and 'He created me' (Prov. viii. 22), and
' made so much better than the angels '
(Heb. i. 4). But He was not ignorant of the
passages, * I am in the Father and the Father
in Me' (Joh. xiv. 10), and * He that hath
seen Me hath seen the Father.' For we know
that he mentioned them in his other Epistles.
For while mentioning them there, he made
mention also of the human attributes of the
Lord. For just as ' being in the form of God
He counted it not a prize to be on an equality
with God, but emptied Himself, taking the
form of a slave' (Fail. ii. 6), and 'though
He was rich, yet for our sakes He became
poor,' so while there are high and rich de-
scriptions of His Deity, there are also those
which relate to His coming in the flesh, humble
expressions and poor. But that these are
used of the Saviour as man is apparent on
the following grounds. The husbandman is
different in essence from the vine, while
the branches are of one essence and akin to
it, and are in fact undivided from the vine,
it and they having one and the same origin.
But, as the Lord said. He is the vine, we are
the branches. If then the Son is of one
essence with ourselves, and has the same
origin as we, let us grant that in this respect
the Son is diverse in essence from the Father,
like as the vine is from the husbandman. But if
the Son is different from what we are, and He
is the Word of the Father while we are made
of earth, and are descendants of Adam, then
the above expression ought not to be referred
to the deity of the Word, but to His human
coming. Since thus also has the Saviour said :
' I am the vine, ye are the branches, My
Father is the husbandman.' For we are akin
to the Lord according to the body, and for
that reason he said (Heb. ii. 12, Ps. xxii. 22),
' I will declare thy name unto my brethren.'
And just as the branches are of one essence
with the vine, and are from it, so we also
having our bodies homogeneous with the
Lord's body, receive of His fulness (Joh. i. 16),
and have that body as our root'^* for our
resurrection and our salvation. But the
Father is called the husbandman, for He it
I was who by His Word cultivated the Vine,
namely the manhood of the Saviour, and who
by His own Word prepared for us a way to
a kingdom ; and none cometh to the Lord
except the Father draw him to Him (Job.
vl 44).
4» CU OrtU. i. 48, note 7, and ii. 56, note 5.
II. The same is true of the analogous
language of the Apostles.
This then being the sense of the expression,
it follows that it is of the vine, so understood, \
that it is written : ' Who was faithful to Him
that had created Him ' (Heb. iii. 2), and
' made so much better than the angels ' (ib.
i. 4), and ' He created me ' (Prov. viii. 22).
For when He had taken that which He had to
offer on our behalf, namely His body of the
Virgin Mary, then it is written of Him that
He had been created, and formed, and made :
for such phrases are applicable to men. More-
over not after (His taking) the body has He
been made better than the angels, lest He
should appear to have been previously less
than or equal to them. But writing to Jews,
and comparing the human ministry of the
Lord to Moses, he said, 'having been made
so much better than the angels,' for by means
of angels the law was spoken, because ' the
law was given by Moses, but grace came by
Jesus Christ ' (Joh. i. 17), and the gift of the
Spirit. And whereas in those days the law
was preached from Dan to Beersheba, now
'their sound is gone out into all lands' (Rom.
X. 18 ; Ps. xix. 3), and the Gentiles worship
Christ, and through Him know the Father.
The above things then are written of the
Saviour as man, and not otherwise.
12. The passages alleged from Dionysius are,
when rightly understood, strictly orthodox.
Well then, did Dionysius, as the adversaries
of Christ reiterate, when writing of the human
characteristics of the Son, and so calling Him
a creature, mean that he was one man among
others ? Or when he said that the Word was
not proper to the essence of the Father, did he
hold that He was of one essence with us men ?
Certainly he did not write thus in his other
epistles, but in them not only manifests •
a correct opinion, but as good as cries out
by them against these people, saying as it
were : I am not of the same opinion as you,
you adversaries of God, nor did my writings
furnish Arius with a pretext for impiety.
But writing to Amraon and Euphranor on
account of the Sabellianisers, I made mention
of the vine and the husbandman and used other
like expressions, in order that, by pointing out
the human characteristics of the Lord, I might
persuade those men not to say that it is
the Father who was made man. For like as
the husbandman is not the vine, so He that
came in the body was not the Father but the
Word ; and the Word having come to be in
the Vine was called the Vine, because of His
bodily kinship with the branches, namely
ON THE OPINION OF DIONYSIUS.
i8i
ourselves. In this sense, then, I wrote as I did
to Euphranor and Ammonius, but your shame-
lessness I confront with the other letters
written by me, so that men of sound mind
may know the defence they contain, and
my right mind in the faith of Christ. The
Arians then ought, if their intelligence were
sound, thus to have thouglit and held concern-
ing the Bishop : ' for all things are manifest to
them that understand, and right to them that
find knowledge' (Prov. viii. 9). But since,
not having understood the faith of the Catho-
lic Church, they have fallen into imipiety, and
consequently, maimed in their intelligence,
think that even straight things are crooked
and call light darkness, while they think that
darkness is light, it is necessary to quote also
from the other letters of Dionysius, and state
why they were written, to the greater con-
demnation of the heretics. For it was from
them that we ourselves have learned to think
and write as we are doing about the man.
13. But other writings of Diotiysius have to be
considered also. Their history.
The following is the occasion of his writing
the other letters. The Bishop Dionysius
having heard of the affairs in Pentapolis, and
having written, in zeal for religion, as I said
above, his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius
against the heresy of Sabellius, some of the
brethren belonging to the Church, of right
opinions, but without asking him, so as to
learn from himself how he had written, went
up to Rome ; and they spoke against him in
the presence of his namesake Dionysius the
Bishop of Rome. And he, upon hearing it,
wrote simultaneously against the partisans of
Sabellius and against those who held the very
opinions for uttering which Arius was cast out
of the Church ; calling it an equal and oppo-
site impiety to hold with Sabellius, or with
those who say that the Word of God is a thing
made and formed and originated. And he wrote
also to Dionysius to inform him of what they
had said about him. And the latter straight-
way wrote back, and insciibed his books
*a Refutation and a Defence.' Here mark
the detestable gang of the adversaries of Christ,
and how they themselves have stirred up their
disgrace against themselves. For Dionysius,
Bishop of Rome, having written also against
those who said that the Son of God was
a creature and a created thing, it is manifest
that not now for the first time but from of old
the heresy of the Arian adversaries of Christ
has been anathematised by all. And Diony-
sius, Bishop of Alexandria, making his defence
concerning the letter he had written, ap-
pears in his turn as neither thinking as they
allege, nor having held the Arian error at
all.
14. Object and general method of Dionysius
in his ' Refutation and Defence.^
And the mere fact of Dionysius having
made his defence about the matters on which
these people harp suffices completely to con-
demn the Arians, and to demonstrate their
malignity. For he wrote, not in angry con-
troversy, but to defend himself on the points
where he was under suspicion. But in
defending himself against charges, what does
he do if not, while disposing of every charge of
which he was suspected, by this very fact con-
vict the Arian madmen of malignity ? But, to
complete their confusion by means of what he
wrote in his defence, come, let me set before you
his actual words. For from them you will learn
firstly that the Arians are malicious, secondly
that Dionysius has nothing to do with their
error. To begin with, then, he wrote his
letter as in Refutation and in Defence. But
this means, surely, that he aims at refuting
false statements, and defends himself for what
he has written ; shewing that he wrote not as
Arius supposed, but that in mentioning what is
said concerning the Lord in His human aspect,
he was not ignorant that He was the Word and
Wisdom undivided from the Father. Then he
blames those who spoke against him for not
quoting his language as a whole, but garbling
it, and speaking not in good faith but disin-
genuously and arbitrarily. And he compares
them to those who used to impeach the letters
of the blessed Apostle. But this complaint of
his entirely clears him from sinister suspicion.
For if he considers the detractors of Paul to be
like his own, he shews precisely this, that he
wrote as he did in Paul's sense. At any rate,
in meeting severally the charges of his oppo-
nents, he explains all the passages cited by
them : and, whereas in these latter he upsets
Sabellius, in his subsequent letters he shews
how sound and pious is his own faith.
Accordingly whereas they would have it that
Dionysius held that ' God was not always
a Father, the Son did not always exist, but
God existed apart from the Word, while the
Son Himself was not before He was begotten :
on the contrary, there was a time when He was
not, for He is not eternal but has come later in-
to being,' — see how he replies 1 Most of what
he said, whether in the form of investigations,
or collective inferences, or interrogatory refuta-
tions, or charges against his accusers, 1 omit
because of the length of his discourses, insert-
ing only what is strictly relevant to the charges
against him. In answer to these, he writes
after certain prefatory matter, in the first book
l82
. DE SENTENTIA DIONYSII.
inscribed ' Refutation and Defence' in the fol-
lowing terms.
15. Extracts from the ' Refutation and
Defence.^
' For never was there a time when God was
not a father.' And this he acknowledges in
what follows, 'that Christ is for ever, being
Word and Wisdom and Power. For it is not
to be supposed that God, having at first no
such issue, afterwards begat a Son, but
that the Son has His being not of Himself but
of the Father.' And a little way on he adds
on the same subject, ' But being the brightness
of light eternal, certainly He is Himself eternal ;
for as the light exists always, it is evident that
the brightness must exist always as well. For
it is by the fact of its shining that the exist-
ence of light is perceived, and there cannot
be light that does not give light. For let us
come back to our examples. If there is sun,
there is sunlight, there is day. If there is
none of these things, it is quite impossible for
there to be sun. If then the sun were eternal,
the day also would be unceasing. But in fact,
as that is not so, the day begins and ceases
with the sun. But God is light eternal, never
beginning nor ceasing. The brightness then
lies before Him eternally, and is with Him with-
out beginning and ever-begotten, shining in His
Presence, being that Wisdom which said, " I was
that wherein he rejoiced, and daily I was glad
in his presence at all times" (Prov. viii. 30).'
And again after a little he resumes the same
subject with the words, ' The Father then being
eternal, the Son is eternal, being Light of
Light : for if there is a parent there is also
a child. But if there were not a child, how and
of whom can there be a parent ? But there
are both, and that eternally.' Then again he
adds, * God then being Hght, Christ is bright-
ness ; and being Spirit, for " God is a Spirit "
(John iv. 24), — in like manner Christ is called
the breath, for He is the " breath of the power
of God " (Wisd. vii. 25).' And again, to quote
the second book, he says, ' But only the Son,
who always is with the Father and is filled of
Him that is, Himself also is from the Father.'
16. Contrast of the language of Dionysius
with that of Arius.
Now if the sense of the above statements
were doubtful, there would be need of an in-
terpreter. But since he wrote plainly and re-
peatedly on the same subject, let Arius gnash
his teeth when he sees his own heresy sub-
verted by Dionysius, and hears him say what
he does not wish to hear : ' God was always
Father, and the Son is not absolutely eternal.
but His eternity flows from the eternity of the
Father, and He coexists with Him as bright-
ness with the light' But let these, who have
so much as imagined that Dionysius held
with Arius, lay aside such a slander against
him. For what have they in common, when
Arius says, ' The Son was not before He was
begotten, but there was once a time when He
was not,' whereas Dionysius teaches, ' Now
God is Light eternal, neither beginning, nor
ever to end : accordingly the brightness lies
before Him eternally, and coexists with Him,
shining before Him without beginning and
ever-begotten.' For in fact to meet the suspi-
cion of others who allege that Dionysius in
speaking of the Father does not name the Son,
and again in speaking of the Son does not
name the Father, but divides, removes, and
separates the Son from the Father, he replies
and puts them to shame in the second book, as
follows.
17. Dionysius did not separate the Persons of
the Holy Trinity.
'Each of the names I have mentioned
is inseparable and indivisible 4^ from that next
to it. I spoke of the Father, and before refer-
ring to the Son I designated Him too in the
Father. I referred to the Son, — and even if I
did not also expressly mention the Father, cer-
tainly He was to be understood beforehand in
the Son. I added the Holy Spirit, but at the
same time I further added both whence and
through whom He proceeded. But they are
ignorant that neither is the Father, qud
Father, separated from the Son, — for the
name carries that relationship with it, — nor is
the Son expatriated from the Father. For the
title Father denotes the common bond. But
in their hands is the Spirit, who cannot be
parted either from Him that sent or from Him
that conveyed Him : How then can I, who use
these names, imagine that they are sundered
and utterly 5 separated from one another?'
And after a little he goes on, * Thus then we
extend the Monad ^ indivisibly into the Triad,
and conversely gather together the Triad with-
out diminution into the Monad.'
4i> This passage is somewhat differently rendered by Dr. Pusey
in his letter on the Filioque (1876), p. 112.
5 The 7rai"TeA(os somewhat qualifies the repudiation. Dionysius
expressly maintained three Hypostases in the Holy Trinity, in
contrast to the language of Rome {de Deer. 26 note 7a) and the
later use of Athanasius himself. But see the Tom. ad Antioch,
of 362, below, and supra p. po, note 2. Dionysius of Rome re-
pudiates Tpei? /xe/neptcr^fVa? u7ro(rTa(7eis, while Dionysius of Alex-
andria (in Bas. fl'^ 6"/. 6".) maintains that unless three Hypostases
be recognised, the divine Triad is denied.
6 As pointed out by Newman on De Deer. a5, note 9, Tpia$and
Mo^cis are concrete, Triiiitas and Unitas abstract terms ; so that
while Trinitas (and Moi-as) lend themselves to a Sabellian, Tpias
and Unitas may be pressed into an Arian sense : but each pair
of terms (Greek and Latin) holds the balance evenly between the
opposite misinterpretations.
•
ON THE OPINION OF DIONYSIUS.
183
18. Dionysius did not hold that the Son was
not of one essence -with the Father.
Next he confutes them upon their charge
that he called the Son one of the things
originated, and not of one essence with the
Father (once more in the first book) as follows :
' Only in saying that certain things were per-
ceived to be originated and created, I gave them
as examples cursorily, as being less adequate,
saying that neither was the plant [of one
essence] with the husbandman, nor the boat
with its builder. Then I dwelt more upon
more apposite and suitable comparisons, and
went at greater length into those nearer the
truth, making out various proofs, which I
wrote to you^^ in another letter, by means
of which proofs I shewed also that the charge
they allege against me is untrue, namely, that
I denied Christ to be of one essence with
God. For even if I argue that I have not
found this word (o/xooi'o-ioi/) nor read it any-
where in the Holy Scriptures, yet my sub-
sequent reasonings, which they have sup-
pressed, do not discord with its meaning.
For I gave the example of human birth,
evidently as being homogeneous, and say-
ing that certainly the parents only differed
from their children in not being themselves the
children, else it would follow that there was
no such thing as parents or children. And the
letter, as I said before, I am prevented by
circumstances from producing, else I would
have sent you the exact words I then used,
or rather a copy of all the letter : which I will
do if I have an opportunity. But I know,
and recollect, that I added- several similitudes
from kindred relations. For I said that a
plant, sprung from a seed or root, was dif-
ferent from that whence it sprung, and at
the same time entirely of one nature with it :
and that a stream flowing from a well receives
another form and name, — for the well is not
called a river, nor the river a well, — and that
both existed, and that the well was as it
were a father, while the river was water from
the well. But they pretend not to see these
and the like written statements, but to be as it
were blind, while they try to pelt me with two
unconnected expressions like stones, from a
distance, not knowing that in matters beyond
our knowledge, and which require training to
apprehend, frequently not only foreign, but
even contrary examples serve to illustrate
the problem in hand.' And in the third book
he says, 'Life was begotten of Life, and
flowed as a river from a well, and from Light
unquenchable bright Light was kindled.'
*• ' To you ' is omitted in the extract de Deer. 15,
19. Inconsistency of the Arian appeal to
Diofiysius.
Who that hears this will not set down as
mad those who suspect Dionysius of holding
with Arius ? For lo ! in these words, by
arguments based on truth, he tramples upon
his entire heresy. For by the simile of the
Brightness he destroys the statements that
' He was not before He was begotten,' and
' There was a time when He was not,' as also
by saying that His Father was never without
issue. But their allegation that He was made
' of nothing ' he destroys by saying that the
Word was like a river from a well, and a shoot
from a stock, and a child from a parent, and
Light from Light, and Life from Life. And their
barring off and separating the Word from God,
he overthrows by saying that the Triad is
without division and without diminution ga-
thered together into the Monad. While their
statement that the Son has no part in the
Father's essence, he unequivocally tramples
down by saying that the Son is of one es-
sence with the Father. Wherein one must
wonder at the impudence of the irreligious
persons. How can they, when Dionysius
whom they claim as their partisan says that
the Son is of one essence^^ themselves go
about buzzing like gnats with the complaint
that the Synod was wrong in writing ' of one
essence ? ' For if Dionysius is a friend of
theirs, let them not deny what their partisan
holds. But if they think that the expression
was wrongly used, how can they reiterate that
Dionysius, who used it, held with them ? the
more so as he does not appear to have
written these things merely by the way, but
having previously written other letters?, he
convicts of falsehood those who had charged
him with not saying that the Son was of
one Essence with the Father, while he refutes
those who thought that he said that the Word
was originated, shewing that he did not hold
what they supposed, but even if he had used
the expressions, he had done so merely in
order to shew that it was the Son, not the
Father, who had put on the originated, formed,
created body; for which reason the Son also
is said to have been originated, created, and
formed.
20. Dionysius must he fairly interpreted, and
allowed the benefit of his own explanatory
statements.
Clearly since he had previously used such
Ci" It should be noted that DionysiuS) while assenting to this
word, does not use it as his own.
7 Possibly to other bishops who had questioned his teaching
(Routh, Rell. iii. p. 380).
1^4
DE SENTENTIA DIONYSII.
expressions, while bidding a long farewell to the
Arians, he demands a good conscience from
his hearers, — being entitled to plead the diffi-
culty, or perhaps one may say the incompre-
hensibleness of the problems concerned, —
namely that they may judge not of the words but
of the meaning of the writer, and the more so
as there is very much to shew his intention.
For instance he says himself: 'I used the
examples of such relations cursorily, as being
less adequate, the plant and the husbandman
for instance ; while I dwelt upon the more
pertinent examples, and went at greater length
into those nearer the truth.' But a man who
says this shews that it is nearer the truth to
say that the Son is eternal and of the Father,
than to say that He is originated. For by the
latter the bodily nature of the Lord is de-
noted, but by the former, the eternity of His
Godhead. In the following words, for instance,
he maintains, and not only so, but deliberately
and with genuine demonstrative force, that they
are refuted who charged him with not saying
that the Son is of one essence with the Father:
' even if I did not find this expression in the
Scriptures, yet collecting from the actual Scrip-
tures their general sense, I knew that, being
Son and Word, He could not be outside the
Essence of the Father.' For that he does
not hold the Son to be a thing created or
formed, — for on this point also they have
quoted him repeatedly — he says in the second
book as follows : ' But if any one of my
traducers, because I called God tlie Creator
the maker of all things, thinks that I mean
that He is Maker of Christ also, let him
mark that I previously called Him Father,
in which term the Son also is implied. For
after I said that the Father is Maker, I added
neither is He Father of the things He created,
if He that begat is to be called Father in the
strict sense. For the wider sense of the term
Father we will work out in what follows.
Neither is the Father a maker, if by maker
is meant simply the artificer. For among the
Greeks, philosophers are called " makers " of
their own discourses. And the Apostle speaks
of a "doer" {noirjrijs) "of the law" (Rom. ii. 13),
for men are called " doers " of inward qualities,
such as virtue and vice ; as God said, " I
looked for one to do justice, but he did
wickedness " ' (Isa. v. 7, LXX.}.
31. /« wAaf sense Dionysius said that the
Son was ' tnade. '
Of a truth one that hears this is reminded of
the divine oracle which says, ' whithersoever
the impious turns, he is destroyed ' (Prov. xii.
7, LXX.). Forlo ! turning subtly in each direc-
tion these impious men are destroyed, having
even here no excuse as touching Dionysius.
For he teaches openly that the Son is not
a thing made or created, while he taxes and
corrects those who accuse him of having
said that God was the creator (of Christ),
in that they failed to notice that he had
previously spoken of God as Father, in which
expression the Son also is implied. But in
saying thus, he shews that the Son is not one
of the creatures, and that God is not the
maker but the Father of His own Word.
And since certain had ignorantly objected to
him that he called God the maker of Christ,
he defends himself in various ways, shewing
that not even here is what he said open to
blame. For he had said that God was the
maker of Christ in regard to His flesh, which
the Word took, and which was in itself created.
But if any one were to suspect that this referred
to the Word, here too they were bound to
give him a fair hearing. ' For as I do not
hold that the Word is a creature, and call
God not His maker but His Father, even if
I in passing, while referring to the Son, call
God a creator, yet even here I am able to
defend myself. For the Greek philosophers
call themselves makers (iroirjrai) of their own
discourses (Xoyot), although they are their
fathers; while the Divine Scripture describes
us as makers (doers) even of the motions of
our hearts, speaking of " doers " of the law and
of judgment and justice.' So that on all sides
he demonstrates not only that the Son is not
a thing made or created, but also that he
himself has nothing to do with Arian error.
22. The relation of the Son to the Father
is essential, according to Dionysius.
For let not any Arian sujopose that he says
even anything of the following kind : The
Son coexists with the Father, so that while
the names are correlated, the things are
widely removed ; and whereas the Son did
not always coexist with the Father, since
the Son came into being, God received from
that fact the additional name of Father, and
His coexistence with Him dates from that
time as happens in the case of men. On the
contrary, let him observe and bear in mind
what we have said before, and he will see that
the faith of Dionysius is correct. For in
saying, ' For there was no time when God was
not Father,' and again, ' God at any rate is
light eternal without beginning nor ever to
end, accordingly the brightness is eternally
before Him and coexists with Him, without
beginning and ever-begotten, shining in His
presence,' he should make it impossible for
any one to entertain any such suspicion against
ON THE OPINION OF DIONYSIUS.
i8s
him. Moreover the examples of the well and
the river, and the root and the branch, and
the breath and the vapour, put to shame the
adversaries of Christ when they reiterate the
contrary against him.
23. Dionysius did not hold that there are
tivo Words.
But since in addition to all his own ini-
quities Arius has raked up this expression also
as if from a dunghill, adding that, * The Word
is not the Father's own, but the Word that is
in God is different, while this one, the Lord,
is outside of and has nothing to do with
the Essence of the Father, and is only called
" Word " conceptually^, and is not by nature
and of a truth Son of God, but is called Son,
He too, by adoption, as a creature ; ' — and
since saying thus he boasts among the igno-
rant as though here too he has Dionysius as
His partisan ; — look at the faith of Dionysius
on these points also, how he contradicts these
perversities of Arius. For in the first book he
writes as follows : ' Now I have said that God
is the well of all that is good : while the Son
has been described as the river which proceeds
from Him. For word is an efflux of intelli-
gence, and, to borrow language applicable to
men, the intelligence that issues by the tongue
is derived from the heart through the mouth,
coming out different from the word in the
heart. For the latter remains, after sending
forth the other, as it was. But the other is sent
forth and flies forth, and is borne in every di-
rection. And so each is in the other, and each
distinct from the other : and they are one,
and at the same time two. Likewise the
Father and the Son were said to be one, and
the One in the other.' And in the fourth book
he says : * For as our intelligence utters the
word from itself, as the prophet says, My
heart uttered a good word (Ps. xlv. 1), and,
while either is distinct from the other, occu-
pying a place of its own distinct from the
other, the one dwelling and stirring in the
heart, the other upon the tongue, — yet they
are not separated, not for a moment lost to
one another, nor is the intelligence without
utterance (aAoyos), nor the word without intelli-
gence, but the intelligence creates the Word
being manifested in it, and the Word shews
forth the intelligence having originated in it,
and the intelligence is as it were an internal
word, and the word an issuing intelligence ;
the intelligence passing over into the word,
while the word circulates the intelligence
among the hearers : and so the intelligence
through the word gains a lodgment in the
8 See Orat. ii. 37. note 7,
souls of the hearers, entering \\\ along with
the word ; and the intelligence is as it were
the father of the word, existing in itself, while
the word is as it were the son of the intelli-
gence, having its origin, not of course before
the latter, nor yet concurrendy with it from
some external source, but by springing out
of il ;— so the mighty Father and universal
Intelligence has the Son before all things as
His Word, Interpreter and Messenger.'
24. If the Arians agree tuith Dionysius
let them use his language.
These things Arius either never heard, or
heard and in his ignorance did not understand.
For otherwise, had he understood, he would not
have so grossly Hbelled the Bishop, but certainly
would revile him also, as he did ourselves,
because of his hatred of the truth. For being
an adversary of Christ, he will not hesitate to
persecute also those who hold the doctrine of
Christ, as the Lord Hunself has said before-
hand : ' If they persecuted Me, they will also
persecute you' (Joh. xv. 20). Or, if the
leaders of impiety think Dionysius was a
partisan of theirs, let them write and confess
what he did. Let them write about the vine
and the husbandman, the boat and the ship-
builder; and let them at the same time con-
fess, as he did in his defence, the Unity of
Essence, and that the Son is of the Father's
Substance, and eternal; and the relation of
intelligence and word, and the well and the
river, and the rest ; in order that they may see
from the very contrast that he used the former
class of language for a special purpose, but
the latter as expressing the fuU meaning of
the Christian Faith. And consequently let
them, by adopting this language, revoke what
they have held inconsistently with it. For
in what way does the faith of Dionysius even
approximate to the mischief of Anus? Does
not Arius restrict the term Word to a con-
ceptual sense, while Dionysius calls Him
the true Word of God by nature ? and while
the one banishes the Word from the Father,
the other teaches that He is the Father's own,
and inseparable from His Essence, as the
word is to the intelligence and the river to the
well. If then any one is able to separate and
banish the word from the intelligence, or to
put asunder the river and the well, and wall
them off, or to say that the river is of another
essence than the well, and to shew that the
water is from elsewhere, or ventures to divide
the brightness from the light and to say that
the brightness is from another essence, then
let him join Arius in his madness. For such
an one will cease to have the semblance even
of human intelligence. But if Nature knows
1 86
DE SENTENTIA DIONYSII.
that these are indivisible, and that the off-
spring of those objects is their very own, then
let no one any longer hold with Arius or
blander Dionysius, but rather on these grounds
admire the plainness of his language and the
correctness of his faith.
25. The teaching of Dionysius on the Word
{contifuied).
For with reference to the madness of Arius
when he says that the Word wliich is in God
is distinct from that one of which John said,
* In the beginning was the Word ' (Joh. i. i),
and that God's own wisdom within Himself is
not the same as that to which the Apostle
refers as 'Christ the power of God and the
wisdom of God' (i Cor. i. 24), Dionysius
resists and denounces any such error, as you
may see in the second book where he writes
on the subject as follows : '"In the beginning
was the Word ; " but it was not Word that
sent forth the Word, for " the Word was with
God." The Lord has been made wisdom
(cf. I Cor. i. 30) : He then that sent out
Wisdom was not Wisdom, for " I was she,"
saith Wisdom, "in whom He delighted." Christ
is truth : but "Blessed," saith He, " be the God
of truth"' (i Esdr. iv. 40), There He over-
throws both Sabellius and Arius, and shews
both heresies to be equal in impiety. For
neither is the Father of the Word Himself
Word, nor is the offspring of the Father a
creature, but the Own-begotten of His essence.
And again the Word that proceeded forth
is not Father, nor again is He one word out of
many ; but He alone is the Father's Son, the
true and genuine Son by nature, Who both
now is in Him, and is eternally and indivisibly
from within Him. Thus the Lord is both
Wisdom and Truth, and is not in the second
place after another wisdom ; but He alone
it is through whom the Father made all things,
and in Him He made the manifold essences
of created things, and through Him He is
made known to whom He will, and in Him
He carries on and effects His universal pro-
vidence. For Him alone does Dionysius re-
cognise as Word of God. This is the faith of
Dionysius : for I have collected and copied
a iQvf statements from his letters, enough to
induce you to add to their number, but to
put the Arians to utter shame on account of
their libel upon the Bishop. For in all, even
the details, of what he wrote, he exposed
their error and branded their heresy.
26. Bow Dionysius dealt with the Sabellians.
Hence too it is manifest that even the letter
to Euphranor and Ammonius was written by
him in a different sense and for a special pur-
pose. For this his defence makes fflain. And
in truth this is an effective form of argument
for the subversion of the madness of Sabellius,
for him that wishes for a short way with those
heretics, not to start from expressions applicable
to the deity of the Word, such as that the Son
is God's Word and Wisdom and Power, and
that 'I and the Father are one' (John x. 30),
lest they, perverting what is well said should
use such expressions as a pretext for their un-
blushing contentiousness, when they hear the
texts, ' I and the Father are one,' and ' he that
hath seen Me hath seen the Father.' (John x.
30, xiv. 9) ; but to emphasize what is said of
the Saviour as Man, as He Himself has done,
such as His hungering and thirsting, and being
weary, and how He is the Vine, and how He
prayed and has suffered. For in so far as these
are lowly expressions, it becomes all the
clearer that it was not the Father that was
made man. For it follows, when the Lord is
called the Vine, that there must also be a hus-
bandman : and when He prayed, that there was
one to hear, and when He asked, that there was
one to give. Now such things shew far more
readily the madness of the Sabellians, because
He that prayed was one, He that heard another,
one the Vine and another the Husbandman.
For whatever expressions are cited to dis-
tinguish between the Son and the Father are
used of Him by reason of the flesh which He
bore for our sake. For created things are dis-
tinct in nature from God. Accordingly since,
the flesh being a created thing, ' the Word,' as
John says, 'was made flesh' (John i. 14),
although He is by nature the Father's own and
inseparable from Him, yet by reason of the
flesh the Father is widely distinguished from
Him. For He Himself permits that what is ap-
propriate to the flesh should be said of him,
that it may be made plain that the body was
His own and not that of any other. But this
being the sense of these sayings, Sabellius will
be the more quickly confuted, it being proved
that it was not the Father that was made flesh,
b It His Word, who also redeemed the fjesh and
ofiered it to the Father. But thus having con-
futed and persuaded him, he will next be able
more readily to Ceach him concerning the deity
of the Word, how that He is the Word and
Wisdom, Son and Power, Brightness and
Express Image. For it is here again a neces-
sary inference that as the Word exists, there
must also exist the Father of the Word, and as
Wisdom exists, there exists also its Parent,
and as Brightness exists so also does the
Light ; and that in this manner the Son and
the Father are one.
ON THE OPINION OF DIONYSIUS.
187
27. Conclusion.
Dionysius knew this when he wrote. And
by his first letters he silenced Sabellius, and in
his others he overcame the heresy of Arius.
For just as the human attributes of the
Saviour overthrew Sabellius, so against the
Arian madmen one must use proofs drawn not
from the human attributes but from what be-
tokens the deity of the Word, lest they per-
vert what is said of the Lord by reason of His
Body, and think that the Word is of like nature
with us men, and so abide still in their madness.
But if they also are taught about His deity they
will condemn their own error ; and when they
understand that the Word was made flesh, they
too will the more easily distinguish in future the
human characteristics from those which fit His
deity. But this being so, and the Bishop
Dionysius having been shewn by his writings to
be pious, what will the Arian madmen do
next ? Convicted on this evidence, whom will
they again venture to malign ? For they needs
must, since they have fallen from the founda-
tion of the Apostles and have no settled mind
of their own, seek some support, and if they
can find none, then malign the fathers. But
no one will believe them any more even if they
make efforts to libel them, for the heresy is
condemned on all hands. Unless perchance
they will henceforth speak of the devil, for he
is their only partisan, or rather he it is who
suggested their heresy to them. Who then
can any longer call men ' Christians ' whose
leader is the devil, and not rather ' Diabolici,'
so that they may bear the name not merely of
adversaries of Christ, but of partisans of the
devil ? Unless indeed they change round, and,
rejecting the impiety they have contrived, come
to know the truth. For this will at once be for
their own good, and it is thus that it beseems
us to pray for all those that are in error.
VITA S. ANTONI.
(Written between 356 and 362).
{Sa*^^ The Life of St. Antony is included in the present collection partly on account of the
|v important influence it has exercised upon the development of the ascetic life in the Church,
partly and more especially on the ground of its strong claim to rank as a work of Athanasius.
If that claim were undisputed, no apology would be needed for its presence in this volume.
If on the other hand its spurious and unhistorical character had been finally demonstrated,
its insertion would be open to just objections. As it is, the question being still in dispute,
although the balance of qualified opinion is on the side of the Athanasian authorship, it is well
■ ^ that the reader should have the work before him and judge for himself. To assist his
\^ judgment, it will be attempted in the following paragraphs to state the main reasons on
V either side. In doing so, I can honestly disclaim any bias for or against the ViYa, or
^ monasticism. Monasticism, with all its good and evil, is a 'great outgrowth of human
life and instinct, a great fact in the history of the Christian religion; and whether its origin
is to be put fifty years earlier or later (for that is the net \'alue of the question at issue)
is a somewhat small point relatively to the great problems which it offers to the theologian, the
historian, and the moralist. But the point is at any rate worthy of careful and dispassionate
examination. In attempting this, while holding no brief for either side, I may as well at once
state my opinion on the evidence, namely that, genuine as are many of the difficulties which
surround the question, the external evidence for the Vt'fa is too strong to allow us to set
it aside as spurious, and that in view of that evidence the attempts to give a positive account
of the book as a spurious composition have failed.
I. Bibliography. a. Sources. The only reference to Antony in other writings of
Athanasius is in Hist Ar. 14. See also Fest. Index x. Vita Pachofnii in Act. SS. Mai.^
Tom. iii. Appx. (written late in the fourth century, but by a person who had known Pacho-
mius). Coptic fragments and documents (for early history of Egyptian monasticism with
occasional details about Antony) in Zoega, Catalogus codd. Copticorum, (Rome, 1810),
Mingarelli, Codd. copticorum reliquice, (Bologna, 1785), Revillout, Rapport sur tine mission,
etc. i^n Archives des Missions scientifigiies et litteraires, 3™^ serie, 1879, vol. 4), Amelineau, ZTzV/.
de S. Pakhome, &c. (Annales du Muse'e Guimet, vol. xvii. Paris, 1889).
i. Modern discussions. Since the Reformation the general tendency of protestant writers
has been to discredit, of Roman Catholics to maintain the authority of the Vita. To the former
class belong the Magfleburg Centuriators, Rivet, Basnage, Casirair Oudin ; to the latter,
Bellarmin, Noel Alexandre, and above all Montfaucon in the Benedictine edition of Athanasius
(especially in the Vita Athanasii, Animadversio II. in Vitam et Scripta S.A., and the
Monitwn in Antonii Vitam, which latter may still claim the first rank in critical discussions of
the problem). We may add, as more or less unbiassed defenders of the Vita, Cave {Hist. lit.
1. 193), and Tillemont {Mem. vol. vii.). All the above belong to the period before 1750. In
more recent times the attack has been led by Weingarten ( Ursprimg des Monchtums in
nachkonst. zeitalter, reprinted in 1877 fi'oi'n Zeitschrift fiir K.G. 1876, and in Herzog, vol. x.
pp. 758 sqq.), followed by Gass (in Ztsch. K.G. II. 274), and Gwatkin {Studies, &c.
pp. 98 — 103). Israel, in Zeitsch. Wiss. Theol. i88o, p. 130, &c., characterises Weingarten's
attack on the Vita as * too bold.' Keim {Aus dem Urchr. 207 sqq.) and Hilgenfeld {in Zeitsch.
f. Wiss. Theol. 1878) put the book in the lifetime of Ath. without absolutely pronouncing for
him as the author, while Hase (/. Prot. Th. 1880), Harnack (especially in Th. Ltz. xi. 391,
I
VITA S. ANTON I. 189
see also ^ Das MbncJitum^ u.s.rv., Giessen, 1886), Moller, Lehrb. der K.G. i 372, and Eichhorn
{' Athanasii de vita ascetka testimofiia,' YiaWe, 1886, the most convincing discussion of recent
date, and indispensable) decide without hesitation in its favour. The discussion of Bornemann
(/« investigaiido fnonachatus origme, quibns de causis ratio habenda sit Origenis, Leipzig, 1885)
may also be mentioned as bearing on the general subject ; also the articles ' Monastery,'
' Coenobium,' and 'Hermits' in D.C.A. The article 'Antony' in D.C.B. passes over the
question without discussion, excepting the trite, but untenable, statement that the Vita ' is
probably interpolated.' Farrar (ZzV^^j 0/ t/ie Fathers, and Contetnp. Review, Nov. 1887) follows
Gwatkin. Picturesque representations of Antony (from the Vita) in Kingsley's Hermits
and Newman's Historical Sketches^ vol. 2.
2. External evidence as to authorship and date. This is given by Montfaucon in
the Monitum and reproduced by Eichhorn, pp. 36 sqq.
i. The Version of Evagrius. Evagrius, presbyter (Eustathian) and subsequently (388)
Bishop at Antioch (in Italy 364 — 373), translated the Vita Antonii mXo Latin. He prefaced it
with a sliort apology (see below, Vit. Ant. § i, note i) for the freedom of his rendering, addressed
'Innocentio carissimo filio.' Now this Innocent, the friend of Jerome and Evagrius, died
in the summer of 374, almost exactly a year after the death of Athanasius (D.C.B. iii. 31,
251). Of this identification there is no reason to doubt; still less ground is there for
the hesitation {Hist. Lit. L 283, *non una est dubitandi ratio') of Cave and others
as to the identity of the version, printed by Montfaucon and transmitted by very numerous
MSS. ('qu^ ingenti numero vidi,' Migne xxv. p. clviii.) with that actually made by Eva-
grius. Therefore, even if we make the two very improbable assumptions that the Dedi-
cation to Innocentius falls within a few weeks or days of his death (i.e. during the
journey from Italy to Syria !), and that the Vita was translated by Evagrius almost im-
mediately upon its composition, the composition of the Vita falls within a few months
of. the death of Athanasius. Its antiquity then 'is fully conceded' even by Mr. Gwatkin
[Studies, p. T03, who yet, y>- 98, puts it down to 'the generation after Athanasius!'). The
translation of Evagrius also preserves what looks like the original heading. It should be added
that the Evagrian version (read in the light of its preface), entirely excludes the hypothesis
that the Greek text of the Vita is interpolated. Evagrius avowedly abridges at times, while in
some cases he embellishes (see § 82, note 16).
ii. Jerome wrote his Vita Fauli'vn the Syrian desert, between 374 and 379. He mentions
both the J^ita and its Latin Version in the prologue : if he had seen the latter he can scarcely
have been ignorant of its heading. The noD-jaention of Athanasius as the author is an
arou?nentujn ex silentio of the most precarious kind. Some fifteen years later {de Script. Eccles.
87, 88, 125) he repeatedly mentions Athanasius as the author, and specifies Evagrius as
the translator.
Iii. Epiirem the Syrian (0pp. ed. 1732-43, I. p. 249) quotes 'Saint' Athanasius by name
as the biographer of Antony. Ephrem died in 373. But little stress can be laid upon this
testimony, in view of the lack of a critical sifting of the works which bear the name of this
saint (so Tillemont viii. 229, and vii. 138). More important is
iv. Gregory- Naz.-.6>r. 21, 'Athanasius compiled the biography of the divine Antony rov
unvaSiKov jiiov vofxadeaiav eV 7rX(i<rfiaTt fiiTj-yr/a-ewj ' (cf Vita, Prologue). This oration was delivered in
380, seven years after the death of Athanasius. Gregory, it is true, is not a good judge on
a point of criticism. But he expresses the opinion of his time, and confirms and is confirmed
by the evidence of Evagrius and Jerome.
V. Rufiniis, Hist. Eccl. I. viii. He would give an account of Antony, but ' ille libellus
exclusit qui ab Athanasio scriptus etiam Latino Sermone editus est.' This was written 400 a,d.:
if in a later work {Hist. Mon. 30, and see also 29) he happens to allude to the Vita without
mentioning its author, we are not entitled to say that to Rufinus ' the work is anonymous '
(Gwatkin, p. 103).
vi. The Lije of Packomius, which (as above mentioned) has details of Antony's life
independent of the Vita, also mentions the latter (c. i) as the work of Athanasius. Though
written perhaps as late as 390, this document is of great weight as evidence in the case (see
Kriiger in Theol. Ltzg. 1890, p. 620).
vii. Paulinus in his prologue to the Life of Ambrose (after 400) refers to the Vita as
written by Athanasius.
viii. Fifth-century historians, Palladius, Hist. Laus. 8, Socrates {H. E., i. 21) Sozomenus
(i. 13) attest the established tradition of their day that Athanasius was the author of the Life.
190 VITA S. ANTONI.
ix. Augustine {Conf. viii. 14, 15, 19, 29) and Chrysostom {Horn. 8 on S. Matthew)
mention the Vita without giving the name of the author. But we are not entitled to cite them
as witnesses to its (alleged) anonymity, which they neither affirm nor imply.
I The above witnesses, all of whom excepting No. viii. come within 50 years of the^death
m- of Athanasius, are a formidable array. No other work of Athanasius can boast-x>f
such external evidence in its favour. And in the face of such evidence it is impossible to
place the composition later than the lifetime of the great Bishop. We have therefore to ask
whether the contents of the Vita are in irreconcileable conflict with the result of the external
evidence : whether they point, not indeed to a later age, for the external evidence excludes
this, but to an author who during the lifetime of Athanasius (i.e. not later than the year
of his death) ventured to publish a hagiographic romance in his name (' Evagrian ' heading,
and §§ 71, 82).
3. Internal Evidence. It may be remarked in limine that for the existence of Antony
there is not only the evidence of the Vita itself, but also that of many other fourth-century
documents (see above i. a. under ' sources '). Weingarten quite admits this {R.E., X. 774, but
he implies the contrary in his Zeit-ia/ein, ed. 3, p. 228); and Mr. Gwatkin is certainly far
ahead of his evidence when he pronounces (Arian Controversy, p. 48) that Antony ' never
existed.'
a. Origin and early history of Monasticism. According to the Vita, the desert was un-
known to \xovaxoi (solitary ascetics) at the time (about 275 ? Vit. § 3) when Antony first
adopted the ascetic life. About the year 285 he began his twenty years' sojourn ia_the ruined
fort^ To the end of this sojourn belongs the first great wave of Monastic settlemenjLm
the desert During the later part of the great persecution ' monasteries ' and monks begin
( to abound (§ 44, 46). The remainder of his long hfe (311 — 356) is passed mainly_in Jiis
' inner mountain,' where he forms the head and centre of Egyptian monasticisoL Now
Jj' it is contended by '^eingarten and his followers that the Vita is contradicted in this im-
^ . portant particular by all the real evidence as to the origin of monasticism, which cannot be
proved to have originated before the death of Constantine. But Eichhorn has I think con-
clusively shewn the hastiness of this assumption. Passing over the disputable evidence of the
De Vita Contemplativa ascribed to Philo, (which Weingarten endeavours, against Lucius and
others, to put back to a date much earUer than the third century and out of relation to Chris-
tian asceticism^), the writings of Athanasius himself are the sufficient refutation of the late date
assigned to the rise of monachism.
In the writings of the supposed date (356 — 362) of the Vita, references to monks -areAfery
frequent (e.g. Apol. Fug. 4, Apol. Const. 29) : but previous to this (339) we find them_rae.n-
" J>-V'" tioned in Encyl. § 3, and yet earlier, Jpol. Ar. 67 (see below). In the letter to Dracontius
{S! r {Letter 49 in this vol.), corporate monasticism is implied to be no novel institution. Dracontius
( di/V' himself (about 354) is president of a monastery, and many other similar communities are re-
^ ferred to. (Gwatkin deals with this letter in an unsatisfactory fashion, p. 102, see the letter itself,
§§ 7, 9, and notes.) The letter to Amun, probably earUer than that just mentioned, is clearly
(sub. fin.) addressed to the head of a monastic society. Again, the bishops Muis and Paulus of
Letter /^(), § 7, who were monks before their consecration, had been in the monastery of Tabennae
•before the death of Pachomius, which occurred almost certainly in 346 (Eichhorn 12, 13.
The whole history of Pachomius, who was only a year or two older than Athanasius, al-
though personally but little known to him, his monastery being at Tabennae, an island
near Philse, is in conflict with Weingarten's theory). Lastly'^ one of the most character-
istic and life-like of the documents relating to the case of Arsenius and the Council of
, Tyre, namely the letter of Pinnes to John Arcaph {Apol. Ar. 67) carries back the
evidence earlier still. Pinnes is 'presbyter of a monastery' {fxovrj) '. that iiovr^ here means
a society of monks, and not a posting station (Weing. in R. £.,X. p. 775) is clear from the men-
tion of ' iielias the monk,' and ' I, Paphnutius, monk o/tAe same monastery' This letter proves
that there were not only Catholic but Meletian monks, and these not hermits but in societies :
and thus the origin of the solitary type of monasticism goes back as far as the Meletian schism.
(The existence of Meletian monks is attested independently of this letter, see Eich. p. 347.)
' Weingarten is quite unable to deal with this obstacle to his theory. His argument is simply
this .'either the letter has nothing to do with monks and monasteries (he overlooks Paphnutius),
' See the note in Vol. I. of this Series, p. 117, D.C.B. iv. 36S, Theod. Ltzz. xiii. 493 — +99.
* The sileiice of Ep. Fest. X. (338) is made much of by Weingarten, but there is nothing there to lead up to a reference to
> (lesert monasticism.
VITA S. ANTONI. 191
or it must be rejected as spurious ! What rediidio ad absurdum could be more complete ? Tn an
equally desperate way he deals with the clear evidence of Aphraates, H0171. vi., as to the existence
of (at any rate) solitary monasticism in Eastern Syria as early as 336. See Texte und Unter-
suchungen iii. 3, pp. xvi. 89, &c. (Leipzig, t888.)
b. Historical misstate7nents. i. It is better to include under this head rather than under
the last the title ad peregrines fratres. Who were the ' foreign monks' {tovs iv rfj ^ivr) (xovaxovs) ?
The introduction of monasticism into the West seems to belong to the time of S. Ambrose
(Aug. Con/, viii. 6, cf. Sozom. III. 14, 'the European nations [before 361] had no experience
of monastic societies ') or rather Martin of 1 ours (D.C.B. iii. p. 840). The statement {Encyd.
Brit. ' Monachism ') that Athanasius carried the Vita Anionii to Rome in 340 is based on
a misunderstanding of Jerome {Ep. 127), who really says no more than that the existence of
mgnachism in Egypt first became known at Rome from the visits of Athanasius and of his suc-
cessor Peterr' If then the ' peregrini fratres' are to be looked for in the West, we have a serious
difficulty, and must choose between the Vita and Sozomen. But the foreign monks may have
belonged to the East. (I cannot see that § 93 ' assumes,' as Mr. Gwatkin-maiptains,, ' the- ex-
istenee-of numerous monks in the West.'. What is said is simply that Antony had bee7i heard of
— rjKovaBr] — in Spain, Gaul, and Africa.) However, the point must be left uncertain, and so far
allowed to weigh against the Vita.
ii. Early intercourse of Athanasius with Antony (Prologue, and note 2). If the Bene-
dictine text is correct, the reference must be to the period before Athanasius became deacon
to Bishop Alexander, in fact to a period previous to 318 a.d. Tillemont (viii. 652), who main-
tains the other reading, mainly relies upon the impossibility of finding room for the intercourse
in question in the early life of Athanasius. But his only source of knowledge of that period is
Rufinus, a very poor authority, and Montfaucon replies with some force {Animadv. 11)
that we have no sufficient information as to how Athanasius passed the years previous to his
ordination by Alexander. He also suggests that Athanasius may have been one of those who
followed Antony's example (§ 46, cf. Apol. c. Ar. 6) after his first visit to Alexandria. I may
add that the notes to the Vita will call attention to several points of contact between the
teaching of Antony and the earliest treatises of Athanasius. Yet the impression left on the
mind is here again one of uncertainty (cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. § x fin.).
iii. The narrative about Duke Balacius (§ 86 : see note there) is another genuine difficulty,
only to be got over if we suppose either \h2,\. Athanasius in one place tells the story inaccurately,
and corrects himself in the other, or that the Hist. Arian. was partly written for Athanasius by
a secretary.
iv. Supposed learning of Antony. His ignorance of letters and of the Greek language does
not prevent his forcibly employing the most effective arguments against Arianism (69),
vindicating the Incarnation (74) much in the manner of Athanasius, and above all showing
a fair acquaintance (72 — 74) with Platonic philosophy (see notes there). But everything
in the biography points. to a man of robust mind, retentive memory (3) and frequent "^
intercourse with visitors. If he were so, he can scarcely have been ignorant of the theological
qontrOYersies. of his day, or of the current philosophical ideas. Nor can I see that the
philosophy of his argument against the Greeks goes beyond what that would imply. His allusion
to Plato, does not look like a first-hand citation. And even an Athanasius would not so
entirely rise out of the biographical habits of his day as to mingle nothing of his own with the
speeches of his hero (' Equidem quid Antonio quid Athanasio tribuendum sit uk diiudicari
posse concedo,' Eich. p. 52).
-^^^f. Inconsistencies with Athanasius. It is the ifipst serious objection to the Athanaslan
'authorship of the Vita that Athanasius (with the exception of the 'antilegomenon ' Hist. Ar.
14) nowhereelse mentions Antony by name. Especially in the letter to Dracontius, who at
first refused the Episcopate in the supposed interests of his soul, we might, it is argued, have
expected a reference to the deep reverence of Antony (§ 67) for even the lowest clergy
(the persons enumerated, Z^//^r 49, § 7, are bishops who had previously been monks, and have
nothing to do with this question). That is true. We might have expected it. But as a
matter of fact Athanasius uses another argument instead (see Letter 49, § 3, note 8"). It does
not follow that he did not know of the Antony of the Vita. But although the letter in question
has been pressed unduly, the general objection, as an argumentum ex silentio on a rather large
scale, remains 3. Some more detailed points must now be considered.
%
3 It is fortified by the 'silence of Eusebius' (i)as to monks in general (but yet see H. £. II. 17, vol. i, p. 116, note in this series) |
(2) as to the part played by Antony at Alexandria during the persecution {,H. E. VII. 32, VIII. 13, IX. 6j ; (3)05 to Constantine's
letter to Antony (§ 81J.
192 VITA S. ANTONI.
a. Demons and Miracles. The writings of Athanasius are singularly free from the
tendency to indulge in the marvellous. The death of Arius he regards as a judgment,
and relates it with a certain awe-struck sobriety. The ^jj/lij; of Julian's death in the Narrat.
ad Anvnon. comes less under the head of ecclesiastical miracle than under that of to. 6(in rwi'
TTpriy/idTCiv (Herod, ix. JOG, of. Grote V. 260 sq.); whereas the Vzfa swarms with rniraculous
and demoniacal stories, some (passed over in silence by Newman and other apologists for the
Life) indescribably silly (e.g. §§53, 63). Hence even Cave allows that the Ftfa contains things
' tan to viro indigna.' But it must be observed (i) that Antony disclaims, and his biographer
disclaims for him, inherent miraculous power. His miracles are wrought by Christ in answer
to prayer, and he prefers that those who desire his help should obtain what they want by
praying for themselves (cf. also § 49). (2) That again and again (esp. §§ 16 — 43) he insists on
the absolute subjection of all evil powers to God, and their powerlessness to injure believers in
Christ. (3) That Athanasius recognises a-tjfxfla (in the sense of miracles, see Letter 49, § 9, note 9)
as a known phenomenon in the case both of bishops and of monks. (4) That his language
about demons and the power of the sign of the Cross in dispersing them is quite of a piece
with what is related in the Vita (see notes passim). (5) On the clairvoyance of Antony,
and one or two kindred matters which offer points of contact with phenomena that have been
recently the subject of careful research, notes will be found below giving modern references.
On the whole, one could wish that Athanasius, who is in so many ways suprisingly in touch with
the modern mind {supra, introd. to de Incar. and Prolegg. ch. iv. § 2 d and § 3), had not written a
biography revealing such large credulity. But we must measure this credulity of his not by the
evidential methods of our own da)', but by those of his own. If we compare the Vita, not with our
modern biographies but with those, say, of Paul and Hilarion by Jerome, its superiority is striking
(this is pointed out by W. I'&x'SiiWxs.Zeitschr.fiir Wiss. Theol. 1878, pp. 130, 137J 145, 153). For
myself, I should certainly prefer to believe that Athanasius had not written many things in
the Vita : but I would far rather he had written them all than the one passage Hist. Ar.
§ 38 fin.
/3. Iheology. That there should be certain characteristic differences from the theology of
Athanasius is what one would expect in an account of Antony that bore any relation to the
historical person. Such is the a.nthropomorphic tendency, shewn especially in the corporeal
nature ascribed to demons. Such perhaps is a tinge of naive semi-pelagianism about the
Hermit's language (§ 20 and elsewhere) ; we cannot forget the connection of Cassian's
Collations with Egyptian monasticism. Once again, 'Antony's shame of the body is not
in the spirit of the writer ad Ainunem^ (Gwatkin, Studies, p. 102). Lastly, in Antony's
account of the heathen gods (§ 76) we miss the characteristic Euhemerism of Athanasius
(see supra, pp. 10, 62, &c.). Throughout, in fact, the ruder monastic instinct crops up from
under the Athanasian style and thought of the biographer. But the latter is also unmis-
takeable (see the notes passim), and the differences have been certainly made too much of.
I will give one example from Mr. Gwatkin, who says {i/hi supra), ' Athanasius does not speak
of TrpoVota like the Vita {c. 49, 66, 74), for de Fuga 25 specially refers to his providential
escape from Syrianus, and c. Gent. 47, irpwoia t^v navTap is very incidental.' Now certainly
the constant introduction of npovoia, which Mr. Gwatkin has understated, is a marked feature
of the Vita. But I am not prepared to say that Athanasius could not speak in this way.
The word is common, and even characteristic, in his writings. A few examples will support
this statement ; more will be referred to in the index to this volume.
De Incarn. 2. I. rrjv tccv oXav n povoiav Ka6 iavTMV ovk fivai ixoBoXoyovo'tv,
14' 6. Tov 8ia TTJi i8ias TT povoias . . . 8i8dtTKOuTOS nepl tov narpos.
Epist. JEg. 15' /SXeTTofTey . . . navra Tci^ft Koi npovoia KivovptPa.
Apol. Fug. 17. epeXe yap avrois . . . prjTf Tr]i> u>pi(Tp(VT]v napd ttjs Ilpovoias Kpiviv irpoKafi-
^dveiv (and SO in §§9, t6, 22, 25 of this short tract).
Orat. iii. 37. 'O narrjp iv ra 'Yia> rmv Trdvroop rrjP irpovoiav Toiflrai,
If each one of these and numberless other references to Providence is * very incidental,'
those in the Vita may surely claim the benefit (whatever that may be) of the same formula.
The above are the principal materials for a decision as to the genuineness of the Vita :
and I do not see how they can justify any opinion but that stated at the outset.
Against the Vita we have certain historical difficulties (intercourse with Athanasius, peregrin!
fratres, Balacius), and arguments ex silent io, a kind of evidence seldom conclusive. For it, we
have a quite unusual array of external evidence, including an almost contemporary version, the
absence of any room for its date at a safe distance from its traditional author, and the many
points of contact, as well as the characteristic differences between the Vita and the writings of
Athanasius. Moreover on the kindred question of the origin of monasticism, Weingarten's
VITA S. ANTONI. 193
theory breaks down, and leads him to suicidal steps in more than one direction. Although,
therefore, it is permissible to keep an open mind on the subject, we must recognise that
the enterprise of the recent assailants of the Vita is at present at a dead halt, that overwhelming
probability is against them.
But if Athanasius wrote the Vita, it does not follow that all its less edifying details
are true, nor that its portraiture is free from subjectivity 1 At the same time, to the present writer
at least, the lineaments of a genuine man, b^oioTiaOov^ rjfi'lv, stand out from the story. Doubtless
there is idealisation, panegyric, an absence of sinfulness (Gwatkin, Studies, p. 100). But the
moderate value set on miracles (38, 56), the absence of the element of fear from his religion
(42, &c.), his serene courtesy (73) and uniform cheerfulness (67, 70), the caution against being
tempted to excess in ascetic exercises (25), the ready half-humorous good sense (73, 85) of the
man, are human touches which belong to flesh and blood, not to hagiographic imagination.
But here the question is one of individual taste. At any rate the Vita embodies the best
spirit of early monasticism. It was the pure desire to serve God and fulfil the spirit of
the Gospel that led Antony to part with all that might make the world precious to him, and
to betake himself to his long voluntary martyrdom of solitude, privation, and prayer. We see
nothing but tenderness and love of men in his character, nothing of the fierce bloodthirsty
fanaticism which in persons like Senuti made fifth-century monasticism a reproach to the
Christian name. Had Antony lived in our time, he might have felt that the solitary Hfe was
a renunciation of the highest vocation of which man is capable, the ministry to the material and
spiritual needs of others. But it is not given to man to see all aspects of truth at once ;
and to our bustling, comfort-loving age, even the life of Antony has its lesson.
The F//'a_has und.oubtedly exercised a powerful and wide-spread influence. Upon it
(^Jerome modelled his highly idealised tales of Paul and Hilarionj at Rome and all over
the West it kindled the flame of monastic aspirations; it awoke in Augustine (Con/, viii. udi
supra) the resolution to renounce the world and give himself wholly to God. The ingens
numerus of Latin manuscripts, and the imitation of its details in countless monastic biographies,
testify to its popularity in the middle ages. Like monasticism itself, its good influence was
not without alloy; but on the whole we may claim for it that it tended to stimulate the
nobler of the impulses which underHe the monastic life.
A few words may be added on the evidence of the Vita as to the form and motive of early
monachism. In the Life of Antony, the stages are (i) ascetics living in the towns and villages,
not withdrawn from society (§§ 3, 4) ; (2) solitary monasticism in the desert, away from human
society; and, as the fame of Antony increases, (3) the formation (§ 44) of clusters of cells centering
iouii£L.aQme .natural leader, the germ of the \avpa (such as the community of Tabennae under
Pachomius). Of organised monastic communities the Vita tells us nothing. With regard
to the motive of the earliest monasticism, this has been variously sought in (i) the development
of the ascetic element present in Christianity from the very first; (2) in the influence of
the Alexandrian School, especially Origen, who again is influenced by the spirit of revolt
against the body and detachment from the world which characterised neo-Platonism (see
Bornemann's work mentioned above) ; (3) in the persecutions, which drove Christians to the
desert (Eus. H. E. vi. 42), which some adopted as their home ; (4) to the (not necessarily
conscious) imitation of analogous heathen institutions, especially the societies of ayvivovra which
were gathered round or in the temples of Serapis (Weingarten, R.E.^ X. 779 — 785. Revillout,
p. 480 n, refers to Zoega, p. 542, for the fact that Pachomius himself was a monk of Serapis
before his forced baptism by his Christian neighbours; and that after it he continued his
ascetic life with no external difference. (5) To the desire to avoid civil obligations, already
marked in the Rescript of Valens {Cod. Th. xii. i. 63, quidam ignauise sectatores desertis
civitatum muneribus, &c.). Of the above motives the Vita gives no support to any but the
first, which it directly confirms, and perhaps indirectly to the second. The date of the Vita
depends mainly on the view to be taken of § 82, where see note i6.
4 The life of Senuti (or ' Schnoudi'), by his disciple Visa, may be consulted in illnsttation of this point. See edition by Amilineru
in vol. 4 of the Mtmoires de la Mission archeologique Franfaist au Cain, z838.
VOL. IV.
LIFE OF ANTONY.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
1
-4 1^ W»<yVrvC^ ^ -fkc- bUckl5<*lj
ruined fort across the Nile, and how he defeated the
Prologue.
§§ I, 2. Birth and beginnings of Antony.
§§ 3, 4. His early ascetic life.
§§ 5, 6. Early conflicts with the devil.- He uOe-vld
§ 7. Details of his life at this time (271—285 ?)
§§ 8_io. His life in the tombs, and combats with demons there.
§ II. He goes to the desert and overcomes temptations on the way.
§§ 12, 13. How Antony took up his abode in a '--^ "--'■ -
demons. His twenty years' sojourn there.
§§ 14, 15. How he left the fort, and how monasticism began to flourish in Egypt. Antony Us leader.
§§ 16—43. His address to monks, rendered from Coptic, exhorting them to perseverance, and encouraging
them against the wiles of Satan.
§ 44. The growth of the monastic life at this time (about A.D. 305).
§ 45. How Antony renewed his ascetic endeavours at this time.
§ 46. How he sought martyrdom at Alexandria during the Persecution (sil).
§ 47. How he lived at this time.
§ 48. How he delivered a woman from an evil spirit.
§§ 49> 5°- How at this time he betook himself to his * inner mountain.'
§§ 51 — 53- How he there combated the demons.
§ 54. Of the miraculous spring, and how he edified the monks of the ' outer ' mountain, and of Antony's
sister.
§§ 55' 56- How humanely he counselled those who resorted to him.
§ 57. Of the case of Fronto, healed by faith and prayer.
§ 58. Of a certain virgin, and of Paphnutius the confessor.
§ 59. Of the two brethren, and how one perished of thirst.
§ 60. Of the death of Amun, and Antony's vision thereof.
§§ 61, 62. Of Count Archelaus and the virgin Polycration.
§§ 63, 64. Strange tales of the casting out of demons. /•/•//'
§65. Of Antony's vision concerning the forgiveness of his sins. -^i-^hS/^c/e A^t^^^'^.
§ 66. Of the passage of souls, and how some were hindered of Satan.
§ 67. How Antony reverenced all ordained persons.
I 68. How he rejected the schism of Meletius and the heresies of Manes and Arius.
§ 69. How he confuted the Arians.
§§ 70, 71- How he visited Alexandria, and healed and converted many, and how Athanasius escorted him
from the city.
§§ 72 — 79. How he reasoned with divers Greeks and philosophers at the * outer ' mountain.
§ 80. How he confuted the philosophers by healing certain vexed with demons.
§ 81. How the Emperors wrote to Antony, and of his answer.
§ 82. How he saw in a vision the present doings of the Arians.
§§ 83, 84. That his healings were done by Christ alone, through prayer.
§ 85. How wisely he answered a certain duke.
§ 86. Of the Duke Balacius, and how, warned by Antony, he met with a miserable end.
§ 87. How he bore the infirmities of the weak, and of his great benefits to all Egypt.
§ 88. Of his discernment, and how he was a counsellor to all.
§§ 89, 90. How, when now 105 years old, he counselled the monks, and gave advice concerning burial.
I 91. Of his sickness and his last will.
§ 92. Of Antony's death.
§ 93. How Antony remained hale until his death, and how the fame of him filled all the world.
§ 94. The end.
[Antony's answers to a philosopher, and to Didymus, are given by Socrates IV. 23, 25 : the
following is from Hanmer's translation of Socr. I. 21 : 'The same time lived Antony the
monk in the deserts of .^gypt. But inasmuch as Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, hath
lately set forth in a severall volume, intituled of his life, his manners and conversation,
how openly he buckled with divils, how he over-reached their sleights and subtle combats,
and wrought many marvellous and strange miracles, I think it superfluous on my part to
intreat thereof.']
For the translation of the text I am indebted to my friend and colleague the Rev. H.
EUershaw, jun.
LIFE OF ANTONY.
/
The life and conversation ot our holy Father,
Antony : written and sent to the monks in
foreign parts by our Father among the Saints,
Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.
Athanasius ^ the bishop to the brethren in
foreign parts.
You have entered upon a noble rivalry with
the monks of Egypt by your determination
either to equal or surpass them in your train-
ing in the way of virtue. For by this time there
are monasteries among you, and the name of
monk receives public recognition. With reason,
therefore, all men will approve this determina-
tion, and in answer to your prayers God will
give its fulfilment. Now since you asked
me to give you an account of the blessed
Antony's way of life, and are wishful to learn
how he began the discipline, who and what
manner of man he was previous to this, how
he closed his life, and whether the things told
of him are true, that you also may bring your-
selves to imitate him, I very readily accepted
your behest, for to me also the bare recollec-
tion of Antony is a great accession of help.
And I know that you, when you have heard,
apart from your admiration of the man, will be
wishful to emulate his determination ; seeing
that for monks the life of Antony is a suffi-
cient pattern of discipline. Wherefore do not
refuse credence to what you have heard from
those who brought tidings of him ; but think
rather that they have told you only a few things,
for at all events they scarcely can have given
circumstances of so great import in any detail.
And because I at your request have called to
mind a few circumstances about him, and shall
' This heading, preserved in the Evagrian version, is probably
the original one. Compare the statement to the same effect in
Vit. Pachotn. 63. The preface to the Evagrian version is impor-
tant as bearing on the question of interpolation. It runs as
follows: ' Evagrius, presbyter, to his dearest son Innocent, greet-
ing in the Lord. A word-for-word translation from one language
to another obscures the sense and as it were chokes the corn with
luxuriant grass. For in slavishly following cases and constructions,
the language scarcely explains by lengthy periphrasis what it
might state by concise expression. To avoid this, I have at your
request rendered thf Lile of the blessed Antony in such a way as
to give the full sense, but cut short somewhat of the words. Let
others try to catch syllables and letters ; do you seek the mtaning.*
send as much as I can tell in a letter, do not
neglect to question those who sail from here :
for possibly when all have told their tale, the
account will hardly be in proportion to his
merits. On account of this I was desirous,
when I received your letter, to send for certain
of the monks, those especially who were wont
to be more frequently with him, that if I could
learn any fresh details I might send them to
you. But since the season for sailing was com-
ing to an end and the letter-carrier urgent, I
hastened to write to your piety what I myself
know, having seen him many times, and what
I was able to learn from him, for I was his
attendant for a long time, and poured water on
his hands ^ ; in all points being mindful of the
truth, that no one should disbelieve through
hearing too much, nor on the other hand by
hearing too little should despise the man.
1. Antony you must know was by descent
an Egyptian : his parents were of good family
and possessed considerable wealth^*, and as
they were Christians he also was reared in the
same Faith. In infancy he was brought up
with his parents, knowing nought else but
them and his home. But when he was g*own
and arrived at boyhood, and was advanc-
ing in years, he could not endure to learn ^"^
letters, not caring to associate with other
boys ; but all his desire was, as it is written
of Jacob, to live a plain man at home 3.
With his parents he used to attend the Lord's
House, and neither as a child was he idle nor
when older did he despise them ; but was both
obedient to his father and mother and attentive
to what was read, keeping in, his heart what
was profitable in what he heard. And though
as a child brought up in moderate affluence,
he did not trouble his parents for varied or
2 Cf. 2 Kings iii. ii : the expression merely refers to personal
attendance (contrast §§ 47, 93). The text is uncertain, as some
MSS. both Greek and Latin read, ' was able to learn/row hhn ivlio
was his attendant,' &c. The question of textual evidence requires
further sifting. In support of the statement in the text we may
cite Af. c. Ar. 6, where Ath. is called ' one of the ascetics,' which
may, but need not, refer to something of the kind.
^^ At Coma in Upper Egypt, see Sozom. i. 13.
»■> Cf. St. Aug. de Doctr. Christ. Prologue.
3 Gen. XXV. 37.
O 2
ig6
VITA S. ANTONI.
luxurious fare, nor was this a source of plea-
sure to him ; but was content simply with what
he found nor sought anything further.
2. After the death of his father and mother
he was left alone with one little sister : his age
was about eighteen or twenty, and on him the
care both of home and sister rested. Now it
was not six months after the death of his
parents, and going according to custom into
the Lord's House, he communed with himself
and reflected as he walked how the Aposdes *
left all and followed the Saviour ; and how they
in the Acts s sold their possessions and brought
and laid them at the Apostles' feet for distribu-
tion to then eedy, and what and how great a
hope was laid up for them in heaven. Ponder-
ing over these things he entered the church,
and it happened the Gospel was being read,
and he heard the Lord saying to the rich
man^, 'If thou wouldest be perfect, go and
sell that thou hast and give to the poor ; and
come follow Me and thou shalt have treasure
in heaven.' Antony, as though God had put
him in mind of the Saints, and the passage had
been read on his account, went out immediately
from the church, and gave the possessions of
his forefathers to the villagers — they were
three hundred acres 7, productive and very fair
— that they should be no more a clog upon
himself and his sister ^ And all the rest that
was movable he sold, and having got together
much money he gave it to the poor, reserving
a little however for his sister's sake.
3. And again as he went into the church,
hearing the Lord say in the Gospel 9, ' be not
anxious for the morrow,' he could stay no
longer, but went out and gave those things
also to the poor. Having committed his
sister to known and faithful virgins, and put
her into a convent ^° to be brought up, he
henceforth devoted himself outside his house
to discipline '', taking heed to himself and
training himself with patience. For there
were not yet so many monasteries " in Egypt,
and no monk at all knew of the distant desert ;
but all who wished to give heed to themselves
practised the discipline in solitude near their
own village. Now there was then in the next
village an old man who had lived the life of a
* Matt. iv. 90. S Acts iv. 35. • Matt. xix. ai.
7 apovpax. The arura was 100 Egyptian cubits square, see
Herod, ii. 168.
8 Or, perhaps, 'iu order that they (the villagers) might have
no occasion to trouble himself and his sister,' i.e. on condition
of future immunity from taxes, &c. (so Neander).
9 Matt. vi. 34.
'o V,a.p6iviav : the earliest use of the word in this sense. Per-
haps a house occupied by Virgins is implied in Apol. c. Ar. 15.
But at this time virgins generally lived with their families. See
D.C.A. 2021'' (the reference to TertuUian there i( not relevant),
Eicbhorn, pp. 4, sqq., 28 — 30.
" ao-K))<T* (so throughout the Vita).
12 Probably the word has in this place the sense of a monk's
cell (D.C.A. 1220), as below, § 39.
hermit from his youth up, Antony, after he
had seen this man, imitated him in piety.
And at first he began to abide in places out
side the village : then if he heard of a good
man anywhere, like the prudent bee, he wjsxiX.
forth and sought him, nor turned back to his
own place until he had seen him ; and he re-
turned, having got from the good man as it
were supplies for his journey in the way of
virtue. So dwelling there at first, he con-
firmed his purpose not to return to the abode
of his fathers nor to the remembrance of his
kinsfolk ; but to keep all his desire and energy
for perfecting his discipline. He worked, hpw-
'ever, with his hands, having heard, ' he who
is idle let him not eat '3,' and part he spent on
bread and part he gave to the needy. And he
was constant in prayer, knowing that a man
ought to pray in secret unceasingly '*. For he
had given such heed to what was read that
none of the things that were written fell from
him to the ground, but he remembered all, and
afterwards his memory served him for books.
4. Thus conducting himself, Antony was
beloved by all. He subjected himself in sin-
cerity to the good men whom he visited, and
learned thoroughly where each surpassed him
in zeal and discipline. He observed the
graciousness of one ; the unceasing prayer of
another; he took knowledge of another's
freedom from anger and another's loving-kind-
ness ; he gave heed to one as he watched, to
another as he studied ; one he admired for his
endurance, another for his fasting and sleeping
on the ground ; the meekness of one and the
long-suffering of another he watched with care,
while he took note of the piety towards Christ
and the mutual love which animated all. Thus
filled, he returned to his own place of dis-
cipline, and henceforth would strive to unite
the qualities of each, and was eager to show in
himself the virtues of all. With others of the
same age he had no rivalry ; save this only,
that he should not be second to them in higher
things. And this he did so as to hurt the feel-
ings of nobody, but made them rejoice over
him. So all they of that village and the good
men in whose intimacy he was, when they saw
that he was a man of this sort, used to call him
God-beloved. And some welcomed him as a
son, others as a brother.
5. But the devil, who hates and envies
what "is good, could not endure to see such
a resolution in a youth, but endeavoured
to carry out against him what he had been
wont to effect against others. First of all
he tried to lead him away from the disci-
pline, whispering to him the remembrance of
<3 9 Thess. iii. la.
14 Matt. vi. 7 ; 1 Thess. r. tf.
LIFE OF ANTONY.
197
his wealth, care for his sister, claims of kin-
dred, love of money, love of glory, the vari-
ous pleasures of the table and the other re-
laxations of life, and at last the difficulty of
virtue and the labour of it ; he suggested also
the infirmity of the body and the length of the
time. In a word he raised in his mind a great
dust of debate, wishing to debar him from his
settled purpose. But when the enemy saw
himself to be too weak for Antony's deter-
mination, and that he rather was conquered by
the other's firmness, overthrown by his great
faith and falling through his constant prayers,
then at length putting his trust in the weapons
which are 'S ' in the navel of his belly ' and
boasting in them — for they are his first snare for
the young — he attacked the young man, disturb-
ing him by night and harassing him by day, so
that even the onlookers saw the struggle which
was going on between them. The one would
suggest foul thoughts and the other counter
them with prayers : the one fire him with lust,
the other, as one who seemed to blush, fortify
his body with faith, prayers, and fasting.
And the devil, unhappy wight, one night
even took upon him the shape of a woman
and imitated all her acts simply to beguile
Antony. But he, his mind filled with Christ
and the nobility inspired by Him, and consider-
ing the spirituality of the soul, quenched the
coal of the other's deceit. Again the enemy sug-
gested the ease of pleasure. But he like a man
filled with rage and grief turned his thoughts
to the threatened fire and the gnawing worm,
and setting these in array against his ad-
versary, passed through the temptation un-
sc_athed_. All this was a source of shame to his
foe. For he, deeming himself like God, was
now mocked by a young man; and he who
boasted himself against flesh and blood was
being put to flight by a man in the flesh. For
the Lord was working with Antony — the Lord
who for our sake took flesh '^ and gave the
body victory over the devil, so that all who
truly fight can say ^y, ' not I but the grace of
God which was with me.'
6. At last when the dragon could not even
thus overthrow Antony, but saw himself thrust
out of his heart, gnashing his teeth as it is
written, and as it were beside himself, he ap-
peared to Antony like a black boy, taking a
visible shape ^^a in accordance with the colour
of„his mind. And cringing to him, as it were,
he phed him with thoughts no longer, for guile-
ful as he was, he had been worsted, but at
15 Jobxl, 16 (z/. II, LXX): the descriptions of behemoth and
leviathan are allegorically referred to Satan, cf. Orat, i. i, note 5.
and below, § 24, K^. /Eg. 3.
»6 Cf. de Incar. 8. 2 ; 10. s> '^ i Cor. xv. 10.
»7» For visible appearances of devils, see ' Phantasms of the
Living,' vol. 2, p. 266, &c. (Trubner, 1886).
last spoke in human voice and said, 'Many
I deceived, many I cast down ; but now
attacking thee and thy labours as I had
many others, I proved weak.' When An-
tony asked. Who art thou who speakest
thus with me ? he answered with a lamentable
voice, ' I am the friend of whorfedom, and have
taken upon me incitements which lead to it
against the young. I am called the spirit of
lust. How many have I deceived who wished
to live soberly, how many are the chaste whom
by my incitements I have over-persuaded !
I am he on account of whom also the prophet
reproves those who have fallen, saying ^71)^ "Ye
have been caused to err by the spirit of whore-
dom." For by me they have been tripped up.
I am he who have so often troubled thee and
have so often been overthrown by thee.' But
Antony having given thanks to the Lord, with
good courage said to him, ' Thou art very des-
picable then, for thou art black-hearted and
weak as a child. Henceforth I shall have no
trouble from thee ^^, " for the Lord is my helper,
and I shall look down on mine enemies."'
Having heard this, the black one straightway
fled, shuddering at the words and dreading
any longer even to come near the man.
7. This was Antony's first struggle against
the devil, or rather this victory was the Saviour's
work in Antony ^9, 'Who condemned sin in the
flesh that the ordinance of the law might be
fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but
after the spirit.' But neither did Antony, al-
though the evil one had fallen, henceforth relax
his care and despise him; nor did the enemy
as though conquered cease to lay snares for
him. For again he went round as a lion
seeking some occasion against him. But An-
tony having learned from the Scriptures that
the devices ^° of the devil are many, zealously
continued the discipline, reckoning that though
the devil had not been able to deceive his heart
by bodily pleasure, he would endeavour to en-
snare him by other means. For the demon loves
sin. Wherefore more and more he repressed
the body and kept it in subjection ', lest haply
having conquered on one side, he should be
dragged down on the other. He therefore
planned to accustom himself to a severer mode
of life. And many marvelled, but he himself
used to bear the labour easily ; for the eager-
ness of soul, through the length of time it had
abode in him, had wrought a good habit in him,
so that taking but little initiation from others he
shewed great zeal in this matter. He kept vigil
to such an extent that he often continued the
i?*" Hosea iv. la. '8 Ps, cxviii 7.
»9 Rom. viii. 3 and 4. *° Eph. vi. 11. _
« I Cor. ix. 27 ; Ath. (with many fathers and uncials) appears
to have read vTroirtafu, the reading which is followed by the
Authorised Version.
198
VITA S. ANTONI.
whole night without sleep ; and this not once
but often, to the marvel of others. He ate
once a day, after sunset, sometimes once in
two days, and often even in four. His food
was bread and salt, his drink, water only. Of
flesh and wine it is superfluous even to speak,
since no such thing was found with the other
earnest men. A rush mat served him to sleep
upon, but for the most part he lay upon the
bare ground. He would not anoint himself
with oil, saying it behoved young men to be
earnest in training and not to seek what would
enervate the body ; but they must accustom
it to labour, mindful of the Apostle's words ^,
'when I am weak, then am I strong.' 'For,'
said he, ' the fibre of the soul is then sound
w' when the pleasures of the body are diminished.'
And he had come to this truly wonderful con-
clusion, ' that progress in virtue, and retirement
from the world for the sake of it, ought not to
be measured by time, but by desire and fixity
of purpos . He at least gave no thought to
the past, but day by day, as if he were at the
beginning of his discipline, applied greater
pains for advancement, often repeating to
himself the saying of Paul 3 : ' Forgetting
the things which are behind and stretching
forward to the things which are before.' He
was also mindful of the words spoken by the
prophet Elias 4, ' the Lord liveth before whose
presence I stand to-day.' For he observed
that in saying ' to-day ' the prophet did not
compute the time that had gone by: but daily
as though ever commencing he eagerly en-
deavoured to make himself fit to appear before
God, being pure in heart and ever ready to
submit to His counsel, and to Him alone.
And he used to say to himself that from the
life of the great Elias the hermit ought to see
his own as in a mirror.
8. Thus tightening his hold upon himself,
Antony departed to the tombs, which hap-
pened to be at a distance from the village ;
and having bid one of his acquaintances to
bring him bread at intervals of many days,
he entered one of the tombs, and the other
having shut the door on him, he remained
within alone. And when the enemy could
not endure it, but was even fearful that in
a short time Antony would fill the desert with
the discipline, coming one night with a mul-
titude of demons, he so cut him with stripes
that he lay on the ground speechless from
the excessive pain. For he affirmed that the
torture had been so excessive that no blows in-
flicted by man could ever have caused him
such torment. But by the Providence of God—
for the Lord never overlooks them that hope
» 2 Cor xii. lo. 3 Phil. iii. 14. 4 i Kings xviii. 15.
in Him — the next day his acquaintance came
bringing him the loaves. And having opened
the door and seeing him lying on the ground as
though dead, he lifted him up and carried him
to the church in the village, and laid him. upon
the ground. And many of his kinsfolk and
the villagers sat around Antony as round a
corpse. But about midnight he came to him-
self and arose, and when he saw them all
asleep and his comrade alone watching, he
motioned with his head for him to approach,
and asked him to carry him again to the tombs
without waking anybody.^
9. He was carried therefore by the man, and
as he was wont, when the door was shut he was
within alone. And he could not stand up on
account of the blows, but he prayed as he lay.
And after he had prayed, he said with a shout,
Here am I, Antony ; I flee not from your
stripes, for even if you inflict more nothing
shall separate mes from the love of Christ. And
then he sang, 'though a camp be set against
me, my heart shall not be afraid ^.' These were
the thoughts and words of this ascetic. But
the enemy, who hates good, marvelling that
after the blows he dared to return, called
together his hounds and burst forth, ' Ye
see,' said he, ' that neither by the spirit of
lust nor by blows did we stay the man, but
that he braves us, let us attack him in an-
other fashion.' But changes of form for evil
are easy for the devil, so in the night they
made such a din that the whole of that place
seemed to be shaken by an earthquake, and the
demons as if breaking the four walls of the
dwelling seemed to enter through them, coming
in the likeness of beasts and creeping things.
And .the place was on a sudden filled with
the forms of lions, bears, leopards, bulls, ser-
pents, asps, scorpions, and wolves, and each
of them was moving according to his nature.
The lion was roaring, wishing to attack, the
bull seeming to toss with its horns, the serpent
writhing but unable to approach, and the wolf
as it rushed on was restrained ; altogether the
noises of the apparitions, with their angry
ragings, were dreadful. But Antony, stricken
and goaded by them, felt bodily pains severer
still. He lay watching, however, with un-
shaken soul, groaning from bodily anguish ;
but his mind was clear, and as in mockery he
said, 'If there had been any power in you, it
would have sufficed had one of you come, but
since the Lord hath made you weak you
attempt to terrify me by numbers : and a proof
of your weakness is that you take the shapes of
brute beasts.' And again with boldness he
said, ' If you are able, and have received power
5 Rom. viii. 35.
6 Ps. xxvii. 3.
LIFE OF ANTONY.
199
against me, delay not to attack ; but if you are
unable, why trouble me in vain ? For faith in
oufXbrd is a seal and a wall of safety to us.'
So after many attempts they gnashed their
teeth upon him, because they were mocking
themselves rather than him.
10. Nor was the Lord then forgetful of
Antony's wrestling, but was at hand to help
him. So looking up he saw the roof as it were
opened, and a ray of light descending to him.
The demons suddenly vanished, the pain of his
body straightway ceased, and the building was
again whole. But Antony feeling the help, and
getting his breath again, and being freed from
pain, besought the vision which had appeared
to him, saying, ' Where wert thou ? Why didst
thou not appear attEFT5e"ginning to make my
I pains to cease ? ' And a voice came to him,
, ' Antony, I was here, but I waited to see thy
fight j wherefore since thou hast endured, and
hast not been worsted, I will ever be a succour
to thee, and will make thy name known every-
where.' Having heard this, Antony arose and
prayed, and received such strength that he
perceived that he had more power in his body
than formerly. And he was then about thirty-
five years old.
1 1. And on the day following he went forth
still more eagerly bent on the service of God,
and having fallen in with the old man he had
met previously, he asked him to dwell with him
in the desert. But when the other declined on
account of his great age, and because as yet
there was no such custom, Antony himself set
off forthwith to the mountain. And yet again
the enemy seeing his zeal and wishing to hinder
it, cast in his way what seemed to be a great
silver dish. But Antony, seeing the guile of
the Evil One, stood, and having looked on the
dish, he put the devil in it to shame, saying,
' Whence comes a dish in the desert ? This
road is not well-worn, nor is there here a
trace of any wayfarer ; it could not have fallen
without being missed on account of its size ;
and he who had lost it having turned back
to seek it, would have found it, for it is a desert
place. This is some wile of the devil, O thou
Evil One, not with this shalt thou hinder my
purpose; let it go with thee to destruction. 3'
And when Antony had said this it vanished
like smoke from the face of fire.
12. Then again as he went on he saw what
was this time not visionary, but real gold
scattered in the way. But whether the devil
showed it, or some belter power to try the ath-
lete and show the Evil One that Antony truly
cared nought for money, neither he told nor do
we know. But it is certain that that which
3 Cf. Acts viii. 20.
appeared was gold. And Antony marvelled
at the quantity, but passed it by as though he
were going over fire ; so he did not even turn,
but hurried on at a run to lose sight of the
place. More and more confirmed in his
purpose, he hurried to the mountain, and
having found a fort, so long deserted that
it was full of creeping things, on the other side
of the river ; he crossed over to it and dwelt
there. The reptiles, as though some one were
chasing them, immediately left the place. But
he built up the entrance completely, having
stored up loaves for six months — this is a
custom of the Thebans, and the loaves often
remain fresh a whole year — and as he found
water within, he descended as into a shrine, and
abode within by himself, never going forth nor
looking at any one who came. Thus he
employed a long time training himself, and
received loaves, let down from above, twice in
the year.
13. But those of his acquaintances who came,
since he did not permit them to enter, often
used to spend days and nights outside, and
heard as it were crowds within clamouring,
dinning, sending forth piteous voices and cry-
ing, * Go from what is ours. What dost thou
even in the desert ? Thou canst not abide our
attack.' So at first those outside thought there
were some men fighting with him, and that they
had entered by ladders ; but when stooping
down they saw through a hole there was
nobody, they were afraid, accounting them to
be demons, and they called on Antony. Them
he quickly heard, though he had not given a
thought to the demons, and coming to the door
he besought them to depart and not to be afraid,
'for thus,' said he, 'the demons make their seem-
ing onslaughts against those who are cowardly.
Sign yourselves therefore with the cross '^j and
depart boldly, and let these make sport for
themselves.' So they departed fortified with
the sign of the Cross. But he remained in no
wise harmed by the evil spirits, nor was he
wearied with the contest, for there came to his
aid visions from above, and the weakness of
the foe relieved him of much trouble and
armed him with greater zeal. For his acquain-
tances used often to come expecting to find him
dead, and would hear him singing s, ' Let God
arise and let His enemies be scattered, let them
also that hate Him flee before His face. As
smoke vanisheth, let them vanish ; as wax
melteth before the face of fire, so let the sin-
ners perish from the face of God ;' and again,
' All nations compassed me about, and in the
name of the Lord I requited them ^.'
4 Cf. de Incam. xlvii. 2. S Ps. Ixviii. 1.
6 Ps. cxviii. 10. Evagr. renders by ' vindicavi in eis.'
2CXD
VITA S. ANTONI.
14. And so for nearly twenty years he con-
tinued training himself in solitude, never going
forth, and but seldom seen by any. After this,
when many were eager and wishful to imitate
his discipline, and his acquaintances came and
began to cast down and wrench off the door by
force, Antony, as from a shrine, came forth
initiated in the mysteries and filled with the
Spirit of God. Then for the first time he was
seen outside the fort by those who came to see
him. And they, when they saw him, wondered
at the sight, for he had the same habit of body
as before, and was neither fat, like a man without
exercise, nor lean from fasting and striving with
the demons, but he was just the same as they
had known him before his retirement. And
again his soul was free from blemish, for it was
neither contracted as if by grief, nor relaxed by
pleasure, nor possessed by laughter or dejection,
for he was not troubled when he beheld the
crowd, nor overjoyed at being saluted by so
many. But he was altogether even as being
guided by reason, and abiding in a natural
state. Through him the Lord healed the
bodily ailments of many present, and cleansed
others from evil spirits. And He gave grace to
Antony in speaking, so that he consoled many
that were sorrowful, and set those at variance
at one, exhorting all to prefer the love of
Christ before all that is in the world. And
while he exhorted and advised them to
remember the good things to come, and the
loving-kindness of God towards us, ' Who
spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up
for us all 7,' he persuaded many to embrace the
solitary life. And thus it happened in the end
that cells arose even in the mountains, and the
desert was colonised by monks, who came forth
from their own people, and enrolled themselves
for the citizenship in the heavens.
15. But when he was obliged to cross the
Arsenoitic Canal ^ — and the occasion of it was
the visitation of the brethren — the canal was
full of crocodiles. And by simply praying, he
entered it, and all they with him, and passed
over in safety. And having returned to his
cell, he applied himself to the same noble
and valiant exercises ; and by frequent conver-
sation he increased the eagerness of those
already monks, stirred up in most of the rest
the love of the discipline, and speedily by the
attraction of his words, cells multiplied, and he
directed them all as a father.
16. One day when he had gone forth because
all the monks had assembled to him and asked
to hear words from him, he spoke to them in
the Egyptian tongue as follows: 'The Scriptures
are enough for instruction 9^ but it is a good
.iora. Tiii. 32. 8 Between the Nile and the Fayflm.
9 Compare c. Gent, i, de Synod. 6.
thing to encourage one another in the faith, and
to stir up with words. Wherefore you, as
children, carry that which you know to your
father ; and I as the elder share my knowledge
and what experience has taught me with you.
Let this especially be the common aim of all,
neither to give way having once begun, nor to
faint in trouble, nor to say : We have lived in
the discipline a long time : but rather as though
making a beginning daily letus increase our earn-
estness. For the whole life of man is very short,
measured by the ages to come, wherefore all
our time is nothing compared with eternal life.
And in the world everything is sold at its price,
and a man exchanges one equivalent for
another; but the promise of eternal life is
bought for a trifle. For it is written, " The
days of our life in them are threescore years
and ten, but if they are in strength, four-
score years, and what is more than these is
labour and sorrow ^°." Whenever, therefore, we
live full fourscore years, or even a hundred in
the disciphne, not for a hundred years only
shall we reign, but instead of a hundred we
shall reign for ever and ever. And though we
fought on earth, we shall not receive our
inheritance on earth, but we have the promises
in heaven ; and having put off the body which
is corrupt, we shall receive it incorrupt.
17. ' Wherefore, children, let us not faint nor
deem that the time is long, or that we are
doing something great, "for the sufferings of
this present time are not worthy to be com-
pared with the glory which shall be revealed to
US-ward "." Nor let us think, as we look at the
world, that we have renounced anything of
much consequence, for the whole earth is very
small compared with all the heaven. Wherefore
if it even chanced that we were lords of all the
earth and gave it all up, it would be nought
worthy of comparison with the kingdom of
heaven. For as if a man should despise a
copper drachma to gain a hundred drachmas
of gold ; so if a man were lord of all the earth
and were to renounce it, that which he gives
up is little, and he receives a hundredfold.
But if not even the whole earth is equal in
value to the heavens, then he who has given up
a few acres leaves as it were nothing ; and even
if he have given up a house or much gold he
ought not to boast nor be low-spirited. Fur-
ther, we should consider that even if we do not
relinquish them for virtue's sake, still afterwards
when we die we shall leave them behind — very
often, as the Preacher saith ", to those to
whom we do not wish. Why then should we
not give them up for virtue's sake, that we may
inherit even a kingdom? Therefore let the
»o Ps. xc. 10. LXX. 11 Rom. viii. i8. " Eccl. iv. 8, vL 2.
LIFE OF ANTONY.
20I
desire of possession take hold of no one, for
what gain is it to acquire these things which we
cannot take with us? Why not rather get those
things which we can take away with us — to wit,
prudence, justice, temperance, courage, under-
standing, love, kindness to the poor, faith in
Christ, freedom from wrath, hospitality ? If we
possess these, we shall find them of themselves
preparing for us a welcome there in the land of
the meek-hearted,
1 8. 'And so from such things let a man per-
suade himself not to make light of it, especially
if he considers that he himself is the servant of
the Lord, and ought to serve his Master.
Wherefore as a servant would not dare to say,
because I worked yesterday, I will not work to-
day ; and considering the past will do no work
in the future; but, as it is written in the
Gospel, daily shows the same readiness to please
his master, and to avoid risk : so let us daily
abide firm in our discipline, knowing that if we
are careless for a single day the Lord will
not pardon us, for the sake of the past, but will
be wrath against us for our neglect. As also
we have heard in Ezekiel '3 • and as Judas
because of one night destroyed his previous
labour.
19. ' Wherefore, children, let us hold fast our
discipline, and let us not be careless. For in
it the Lord is our fellow-worker, as it is
written, "to all that choose the good, God
worketh with them for good '4." But to avoid
being heedless, it is good to consider the word
of the Apostle, "I die daily's." For if we too live
as though dying daily, we shall not sin. And the
meaning of that saying is, that as we rise day by
day we should think that we shall not abide till
evening ; and again, when about to lie down to
sleep, we should think that we shall not rise up.
For our life is naturally uncertain, and Provi-
dence allots it to us daily. But thus ordering
our daily life, we shall neither fall into sin,
nor have a lust for anything, nor cherish wrath
against any, nor shall we heap up treasure
upon earth. But, as though under the daily
expectation of death, we shall be without wealth,
and shall forgive all things to all men, nor shall
we retain at all the desire of women or of any
other foul pleasure. But we shall turn from
it as past and gone, ever striving and looking
forward to the day of Judgment. For the
greater dread and danger of torment ever
destroys the ease of pleasure, and sets up the
soul if it is like to fall.
20. ' Wherefore having already begun and
set out in the way of virtue, let us strive
the more that we may attain those things
that are before. And let no one turn to
>3 Ezek. xviii. 36.
•4 Rom. viii. a8, R.V. Marg.
'5 I Cor. XV. 31.
the things behind, like Lot's wife, all the
more so that the Lord hath said, " No man,
having put his hand to the plough, and turn
ing back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven '^"
And this turning back is nought else but
to feel regret, and to be once more worldly-
minded. But fear not to hear of virtue, nor be
astonished at the name. For it is not far from
us, nor is it without ourselves, but it is within
us, and is easy if only we are willing. That
they may get knowledge, the Greeks live abroad
and cross the sea, but we have no need to
depart from home for the sake of the kingdom
of heaven, nor to cross the sea for the sake of
virtue. For the Lord aforetime hath said,
"The kingdom of heaven is within you '7."
Wherefore virtue hath need at our hands of
willingness alone, since it is in us and is
formed from us. For when the soul hath its
spiritual faculty in a natural state virtue is
formed. And it is in a natural state when
it remains as it came into existence. And
when it came into existence it was fair and
exceeding honest. For this cause Joshua,
the son of Nun, in his exhortation said to
the people, " Make straight your heart unto the
Lord God of IsraeP^" and John, "Make your
paths straight '9." For rectitude of soul consists
in its having its spiritual part in its natural state
as created. But on the other hand, when it
swerves and turns away from its natural state,
that is called vice of the soul. Thus the
matter is not difficult. If we abide as we have
been made, we are in a state of virtue, but
if we think of ignoble things we shall be
accounted evil. If, therefore, this thing had
to be acquired from without, it would be
difficult in reahty ; but if it is in us, let us
keep oursefves from foul thoughts. And as
we have received the soul as a deposit, let us
preserve it for the Lord, that He may recognise
His work as being the same as He made it.
21. 'And let us strive that wrath rule us not
nor lust overcome us, for it is written, "The
wrath of man worketh not the righteousness
of God. And lust, when it hath, conceived,
beareth sin, and the sin when it is full
grown bringeth forth death^°." Thus living,
let us keep guard carefully, and as it is
written, "keep our hearts with all watchful-
ness \" For we have terrible and crafty foes —
the evil spirits — and against them we wrestle, as
the Apostle said, " Not against flesh and blood,
but against the principalities and against the
powers, against the world-rulers of this dark-
ness, against the spiritual hosts of wicked-
ness in the heavenly places '*." Great is their
i6 Phil. iii. 13 ; Gen. xix. 26 ; Luke ix. 62.
17 Luke xvii. 31 (from memory). '^ Josh. xxiv. 33.
»9 Matt. iii. 3. ^° James i. 20 and 15.
' Prov. iv. 23. »» Eph. vi. 12.
102
VITA S. ANTONI.
number in the air around us*, and they are
not far from us. Now there are great distinc-
tions among them ; and concerning their
nature and distinctions much could be said,
but such a description is for others of greater
powers than we possess. But at this time it
is pressing and necessary for us only to know
their wiles against ourselves.
22. 'First, therefore, we must know this:
that the demons have not been created like
what we mean when we call them by that name ;
for God made nothing evil, but even they have
been made good. Having fallen, however, from
the heavenly wisdom, since then they have
been grovelling on earth. On the one hand
they deceived the Greeks with their displays,
while out of envy of us Christians they move
all things in their desire to hinder us from
entry into the heavens ; in order that we should
not ascend up thither from whence they fell.
Thus there is need of much prayer and of
discipline, that when a man has received
through the Spirit the gift of discerning spirits,
he may have power to recognise their charac-
teristics : which of them are less and which
more evil ; of what nature is the special pursuit
of each, and how each of them is overthrown
and cast out. For their villainies and the
changes in their plots are many. The blessed
Apostle and his followers knew such things
when they said, "for we are not ignorant of
his devices 3 ;" and we, from the temptations we
have suffered at their hands, ought to correct
one another under them. Wherefore I, having
had proof of them, speak as to children.
23. ' The demons, therefore, if they see all
Christians, and monks especially, labouring
cheerfully and advancing, first make an at-
tack by temptation and place hindrances to
hamper our way, to wit, evil thoughts. But
we need not fear their suggestions, for by
prayer, fasting, and faith in the Lord their
attack immediately fails. But even when it
does they cease not, but knavishly by subtlety
come on again. For when they cannot de-
ceive the heart openly with foul pleasures
they approach in different guise, and thence-
forth shaping displays they attempt to strike
fear, changing their shapes, taking the forms
of women, wild beasts, creeping things, gigantic
bodies, and troops of soldiers. But not even
then need ye fear their deceitful displays. For
they are nothing and quickly disappear, es-
pecially if a man fortify himself beforehand
with faith and the sign of the cross! Yet are
' This is not quite the view of Athanasius himself, who regards
the air as cleared of evil spirits by the Death of Christ, de /near.
XXV. s : but Athan. does not mean that their power over i/te wicked
is done away ; nor does Antony ascribe to them any power over
the Christian, see §§ 24, 28, 41.
3 2 Cor. ii. It. 4 See above, § 13.
they bold and very shameless, for if thus they
are worsted they make an onslaught in another
manner, and pretend to prophesy and foretell
the future, and to shew themselves of a height
reaching to the roof and of great breadth ; that
they may stealthily catch by such displays
those who could not be deceived by their
arguments. If here also they find the soul
strengthened by faith and a hopeful mind, then
they bring their leader to their aid.
24. ' And he said they often appeared as the
Lord revealed the devil to Job, saying, " His
eyes are as the morning star. From his mouth
proceed burning lamps and hearths of fire are
cast forth. The smoke of a furnace blazing with
the fire of coals proceeds from his nostrils.
His breath is coals and from his mouth issues
flames." When the prince of the demons ap-
pears in this wise, the crafty one, as I said
before, strikes terror by speaking great things,
as again the Lord convicted him saying to Job,
for " he counteth iron as straw, and brass as
rotten wood, yea he counteth the sea as a pot
of ointment, and the depth of the abyss as a
captive, and the abyss as a covered walk^" And
by the prophet, " the enemy said, I will pursue
and overtake?," and again by another, " I will
grasp the whole world in my hand as a nest, and
take it up as eggs that have been left^." Such,
in a word, are their boasts and professions that
they may deceive the godly. But not even
then ought we, the faithful, to fear his appear-
ance or give heed to his words. For he is a
liar and speaketh of truth never a word. And
though speaking words so many and so great
in his boldness, without doubt, like a dragon
he was drawn with a hook by the Saviour?, and
as a beast of burden he received the halter
round his nostrils, and as a runaway his
nostrils were bound with a ring, and his lips
bored with an armlet '°. And he was bound by
the Lord as a sparrow, that we should mock
him. And with him are placed the demons
his fellows, like serpents and scorpions to be
trodden underfoot by us Christians. And the
proof of this is that we now live opposed to
him. For he who threatened to dry the sea
and seize upon the world, behold now cannot
stay our discipline, nor even me speaking
against him. Let us then heed not his words,
for he is a liar : and let us not fear his visions,
seeing that they themselves are deceptive. For
that which appears in them is no true light,
but they are rather the preludes and likenesses
of the fire prepared for the demons who at-
tempt to terrify men with those flames in
which they themselves will be burned. Doubt-
S Job xli. 18, 19, 20 (w. 9 — II, LXX.), see above § 5, note ij.
fi Job xli. 27 sq. 7 Exod. xv. 9. * Isai. x. 14, cf. £/.
Mg. 2. 9 Job xli. I. 10 Ibid. 2. Cf. Job xl. 19—24.
LIFE OF ANTONY.
203
less they appear; but in a moment disappear
again, hurting none of the faithful, but bringing
with them the hkeness of that fire which is
about to receive themselves. Wherefore it is
unfitting that we should fear them on account
of these things ; for through the grace of
Christ all their practices are in vain.
25. 'Again they are treacherous, and are
ready to change themselves into all forms and
assume all appearances. Very often also
without appearing they imitate the music of
harp and voice, and recall the words of Scrip-
ture. Sometimes, too, while we are reading
they immediately repeat many times, like an
echo, what is read. They arouse us from our
sleep to prayers; and this constantly, hardly
allowing us to sleep at alL At another time
they assume the appearance of monks and
feign the speech of holy men, that by their
similarity they may deceive and thus drag
their victims where they will. But no heed
must be paid them even if they arouse to
prayer, even if they counsel us not to eat at all,
even though they seem to accuse and cast
shame upon us for those things which once
they allowed. For they do this not for the
sake of piety or truth, but that they may
carry off the simple to despair ; and that they
may say the discipline is useless, and make
men loathe the sohtary life as a trouble and
burden, and hinder those who in spite of them
walk in it.
26. ' Wherefore the prophet sent by the Lord
declared them to be wretched, saying : " Wo
is he who giveth his neighbours to drink
muddy destruction"." For such practices and
devices are subversive of the way which leads
to virtue. And the Lord Himself, even if the
demons spoke the truth, — for they said truly :
"Thou art the Son of God""— still bridled
their mouths and suffered them not to speak ;
lest haply they should sow their evil along with
the truth, and that He might accustom us never
to give heed to them even though they appear
to speak what is true. For it is unseemly that
we, having the holy Scriptures and freedom
from the Saviour, should be taught by the
devil who hath not kept his own order but
hath gone from one mind to another '3. Where-
fore even when he uses the language of Scrip-
ture He forbids him, saying: "But to the
sinner said God, Wherefore dost thou declare
My ordinances and takest My covenant in
thy mouths ? " For the demons do all things
— they prate, they confuse, they dissemble,
they confound— to deceive the simple. They
din, laugh madly, and whistle ; but if no heed
" Habak. ii. 15. LXX.
€Te'pioi', as in de [near. 11. 4.
«a Luke iv. 41. 13 crepa a.v6'
«4 Ps. 1. 16, Ep. jEg. 3.
is paid to them forthwith they weep and
lament as though vanquished.
27. ' The Lord therefore, as God, stayed the
mouths of the demons : and it is fitting that
we, taught by the saints, should do like them
and imitate their courage. For they when
they saw these things used to say : " When the
sinner rose against me, I was dumb and
humble, and kept silence from good words 's,"
And again : " But I was as a deaf man and
heard not, and as a dumb man who openeth
not his mouth, and I became as a man who
heareth not'^." So let us neither hear them
as being strangers to us, nor give heed to
them even though they arouse us to prayer
and speak concerning fasting. But let us
rather apply ourselves to our resolve of disci-
pline, and let us not be deceived by them who
do all things in deceit, even though they
threaten death. For they are weak and can
do nought but threaten.
28. 'Already in passing I have spoken on
these things, and now I must not shrink from
speaking on them at greater length, for to put
you in remembrance will be a source of safety.
Since the Lord visited earth '7^ the enemy
is fallen and his powers weakened. Where-
fore although he could do nothing, still like
a tyrant, he did not bear his fall quietly, but
threatened, though his threats were words only.
And let each one of you consider this, and
he will be able to despise the demons. Now
if they were hampered with such bodies as
we are, it would be possible for them to say,
" Men when they are hidden we cannot find, but
whenever we do find them we do them hurt."
And we also by lying in concealment could
escape them, shutting the doors against them.
But if they are not of such a nature as this, but
are able to enter in, though the doors be shut,
and haunt all the air, both they and their
leader the devil, and are wishful for evil
and ready to injure; and, as the Saviour
said, "From the beginning the devil is a
manslayer and a father of vice '^ ; " while
we, though this is so, are alive, and spend
our lives all the more in opposing him ;
it is plain they are powerless. For place
is no hindrance to their plots, nor do they
look on us as friends that they should spare
us ; nor are they lovers of good that they
should amend. But on the contrary they are
evil, and nothing is so much sought after
by them as wounding them that love virtue
and fear God. But since they have no
power to effect anything, they do nought but
threaten. But if they could, they would not
*5 Ps. xxxix. 2.
»7 Cf. de Incur. 47, 48.
«6 Ps. xxxviii. 14.
'8 John viii. 44.
204
VITA S. ANTONI.
hesitate, but forthwith work evil (for all their
desire is set on this), and especially against us.
Behold now we are gathered together and
speak against them, and they know when we
advance they grow weak. If therefore they
had power they would permit none of us
Christians to live, for godliness is an abomina-
tion to a sinner ^9. But since they can do
nothing they inflict the greater wounds on
themselves ; for they can fulfil none of their
threats. Next this ought to be considered,
that we may be in no fear of them : that if
they had the power they would not come in
crowds, nor fashion displays, nor with change
of form would they frame deceits. But it
would suffice that one only should come and
accomplish that which he was both able and
willing to do : especially as every one who has
the power neither slays with display nor strikes
fear with tumult, but forthwith makes full use of
his authority as he wishes. But the demons
as they have no power are like actors on the
stage changing their shape and frightening
children with tumultuous apparition and
various forms : from which they ought rather
to be despised as shewing their weakness.
At least the true angel of the Lord sent
against the Assyrian had no need for tumults,
nor displays from without, nor noises nor
rattlings, but in quiet he used his power and
forthwith destroyed a hundred and eighty-
five thousand. But demons like these, who
have no power, try to terrify at least by their
displays 2°.
29. 'But if any one having in mind the his-
tory of Job ' should say. Why then hath the
devil gone forth and accomplished all things
against him ; and stripped him of all his
possessions, and slew his children, and smote
him with evil ulcers? let such a one, on the
other hand, recognise that the devil was not
the strong man, but God who delivered Job to
him to be tried. Certainly he had no power
to do anything, but he asked, and having
received it, he hath wrought what he did. So
also from this the enemy is the more to be
condemned, for although willing he could not
prevail against one just man. For if he could
have, he would not have asked permission.
But having asked not once but also a second
time, he shows his weakness and want of
power. And it is no wonder if he could do
nothing against Job, when destruction would
not have come even on his cattle had not God
allowed it. And he -has not the power over
swine, for as it is written in the Gospel, they
besought the Lord, saying, " Let us enter the
•9 Ecclesiasticus i. 25- . "o 2 Kings xix. 35.
' Job i. and ii.
swine*." But if they had power not even
against swine, much less have they any over
men formed 3 in the image of God.
30. 'So then we ought to fear God only, and
despise the demons, and be in no fear of them.
But the more they do these things the more let
us intensify our discipline against them, for a
good life and faith in God is a great weapon.
At any rate they fear the fasting, the sleepless-
ness, the prayers, the meekness, the quietness,
the contempt of money and vainglory, the
humility, the love of the poor, the alms, the
freedom from anger of the ascetics, and, chief
of all, their piety towards Christ. Wherefore
they do all things that they may not have any
that trample on them, knowing the grace given
to the faithful against them by the Saviour,
when He says, " Behold I have given to you
power to tread upon serpents and scorpions,
and upon all the power of the enemy ■♦."
31. 'Wherefore if they pretend to foretell
the future, let no one give heed, for often
they announce beforehand that the brethren
are coming days after. And they do come.
The demons, however, do this not from any
care for the hearers, but to gain their trust,
and that then at length, having got them
in their power, they may destroy them.
Whence we must give no heed to them, but
ought rather to confute them when speaking,
since we do not need them. For what wonder
is it, if with more subtle bodies than men
have 5, when they have seen them start on their
journey, they surpass them in speed, and
announce their coming ? Just as a horseman
getting a start of a man on foot announces the
arrival of the latter beforehand, so in this there
is no need for us to wonder at them. For they
know none of those things which are not yet in
existence ; but God only is He who knoweth
all things before their birth ^. But these, like
thieves, running off first with what they see,
proclaim it : to how many already have they
announced our business — that we are assembled
together, and discuss measures against them,
before any one of us could go and tell these
things. This in good truth a fleet-footed boy
could do, getting far ahead of one less swift.
But what I mean is this. If any one begins to
walk from the Thebaid, or from any other
district, before he begins to walk, they do not
know whether he will walk. But when they
have seen him walking they run on, and before
he comes up report his approach. And so it
a Matt. viii. 31. 3 Cf. de Incar. 3. 3, a.nd passim.
4 Luke X. 19.
5 This materialistic view of demons may be paralleled from
Origen and other fathers (D.C.B. i. 809), but is not Athanasian.
But it would be congenial to the Coptic mind ; compare the story
told by Cassian of the Monlc Serapion, who, on being convinced
that ' God is a Spirit,' cried out, You have taken my God from
me' (and see D.C.B. i. p. 120). * Susann. 42.
LIFE OF ANTONY.
20S
falls out that after a few days the travellers
arrive. But often the walkers turn back, and
the demons prove false.
32. 'So, too, with respect to the water of the
river, they sometimes make foolish statements.
For having seen that there has been much rain
in the regions of Ethiopia, and knowing that
they are the cause of the flood of the river,
before the water has come to Egypt they run
on and announce it. And this men could
have told, if they had as great power of running
as the demons. And as David's spy 7 going up
to a lofty place saw the man approaching
better than one who stayed down below, and
the forerunner himself announced, before the
others came up, not those things which had not
taken place, but those things which were
already on the way and were being accom-
plished, so these also prefer to labour, and
declare what is happening to others simply for
the sake of deceiving them. If, however.
Providence meantime plans anything different
for the waters or wayfarers — for Providence can
do this — the demons are deceived, and those
who gave heed to them cheated.
33. 'Thus in days gone by arose the oracles
of the Greeks, and thus they were led astray by
the demons. But thus also thenceforth their
deception was brought to an end by the coming
of the Lord^, who brought to nought the
demons and their devices. For they know
nothing of themselves, but, like thieves, what
they get to know from others they pass on, and
guess at rather than foretell things. Therefore
if sometimes they speak the truth, let no one
marvel at them for this. For experienced
physicians also, since they see the same malady
in different people, often foretell what it is,
making it out by their acquaintance with it.
Pilots, too, and farmers, from their familiarity
with the weather, tell at a glance the state of
the atmosphere, and forecast whether it will be
stormy or fine. And no one would say that
they do this by inspiration, but from experi-
ence and practice. So if the demons some-
times do the same by guesswork, let no one
wonder at it or heed them. For what use to
the hearers is it to know from them what is
going to happen before the time ? Or what con-
cern have we to know such things, even if the
knowledge be true ? For it is not productive of
virtue, nor is it any token of goodness. For
none of us is judged for what he knows not,
and no one is called blessed because he hath
learning and knowledge. But each one will be
called to judgment in these points — whether he
have kept the faith and truly observed the
commandments.
7 a Sam. xviii. 24.
8 De Incur. 47.
34. 'Wherefore there is no need to set
much value on these things, nor for the
sake of them to practise a life of disci-
pline and labour; but that living well we
may please God. And we neither ought
to pray to know the future, nor to ask for
it as the reward of our discipline; but our
prayer should be that the Eord may be our
fellow- helper for victory over the devil. And
if even once we have a desire to know
the future, let us be pure in mind, for I
believe that if a soul is perfectly pure and in
its natural state, it is able 9, being clear-sighted,
to see more and further than the demons — for
it has the Lord who reveals to it — like the
soul of Elisha, which saw what was done^° by
Gehazi, and beheld the hosts " standing on its
side.
35. ' When, therefore, they come by night to
you and wish to tell the future, or say, " we are
the angels," give no heed, for they lie. Yea even
if they praise your discipline and call you.
blessed, hear them not, and have no dealings
with them ; but rather sign yourselves and
your houses, and pray, and you shall see
them vanish. For they are cowards, and
greatly fear the sign of the Lord's Cross, since
of a truth in it the Saviour stripped them,
and made an example of them "^ But if they
shamelessly stand their ground, capering and
changing their forms of appearance, fear them
not, nor shrink, nor heed them as though they
were good spirits. For the presence either of
the good or evil by the help of God can easily
be distinguished. The vision of the holy ones
is not fraught with distraction : "For they will
not strive, nor cry, nor shall any one hear their
voice ^^." But it comes so quietly and gently
that immediately joy, gladness and courage
arise in the soul. For the Lord who is our
joy is with them, and the power of God
the Father. And the thoughts of the soul
remain unruffled and undisturbed, so that
it, enlightened as it were with rays, beholds
by itself those who appear. For the love
of what is divine and of the things to come
possesses it, and willingly it would be wholly
joined with them if it could depart along
with them. But if, being men, some fear the
vision of the good, those who appear im-
mediately take fear away ; as Gabriel '3 did in
the case of Zacharias, and as the angel ''^ did
who appeared to the women at the holy
9 Compare below, §§ 59, 62, for examples. This quite goes
beyond any teaching of Athanasius himself; at the same lime
it finds a point of contact in what he says about dreams in c. Gtnt.
30 ((aai/Tevdniei/os koX npoyLyvoiiTKiov), and about the soul's capacity
for objective thought, ib. 33, de /near. 17. 3.
to 2 Kings V. 26. *' 2 Kings vi. 17. "» Col. li. 15.
13 Matt. xii. 19, cf. Isai. xlii. 2. »3 Luke i. 13.
u Matt, xxviii. 5.
206
VITA S. ANTONI.
sepulchre, and as He did who said to the
shepherds in the Gospel, "Fear not." For
their fear arose not from timidity, but from the
recognition of the presence of superior beings.
Such then is the nature of the visions of the
holy ones.
36. 'But the inroad and the display of the
evil spirits is fraught with confusion, with din,
with sounds and cryings such as the disturbance
of boorish youths or robbers would occasion.
From which arise fear in the heart, tumult
and confusion of thought, dejection, hatred
towards them who live a life of discipline,
indifference, grief, remembrance of kinsfolk
and fear of death, and finally desire of evil
things, disregard of virtue and unsettled habits.
Whenever, therefore, ye have seen ought and
are afraid, if your fear is immediately taken
away and in place of it comes joy unspeakable,
cheerfulness, courage, renewed strength, calm-
ness of thought and all those I named before,
boldness and love toward God, — take courage
and pray. For joy and a settled state of soul
show the holiness of him who is present.
Thus Abraham beholding the Lord rejoiced "■* ;
so also John 's at the voice of Mary, the God-
bearer'^, leaped for gladness. But if at the
appearance of any there is confusion, knocking
without, worldly display, threats of death and
the other things which I have already men-
tioned, know ye that it is an onslaught of evil
spirits.
37. 'And let this also be a token for you :
whenever the soul remains fearful there is a pre-
sence of the enemies. For the demons do not
take away the fear of their presence as the
great archangel Gabriel did for Mary and
Zacharias, and as he did who appeared to the
women at the tomb ; but rather whenever
they see men afraid they increase their de-
lusions that men may be terrified the more ;
and at last attacking they mock them, saying,
" fall down and worship." Thus they deceived
the Greeks, and thus by them they were con-
sidered gods, falsely so called. But the Lord
did not suffer us to be deceived by the devil,
for He rebuked him whenever he framed such
delusions against Him, saying : " Get behind
me, Satan : for it is written. Thou shalt worship
the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou
serve '7." More and more, therefore, let the de-
ceiver be despised by us ; for what the Lord
hath said, this for our sakes He hath done :
that the demons hearing like words from us
may be put to flight through the Lord who
rebuked them in those words.
38. *And it is not fitting to boast at the
*4 John viii. 56. is Luke i. 41.
'6 SeoTOKoS) as in Orat. iii. 14 (where see note 3).
17 Matt. iv. 10,
casting forth of the demons, nor to be uplifted
by the healing of diseases : nor is it fitting that
he who casts out devils should alone be highly
esteemed, while he who casts them not out
should be considered nought. But let a man
learn the discipline of each one and either imi-
tate, rival, or correct it. For the working of
signs is not ours but the Saviour's work : and
so He said to His disciples : " Rejoice not
that the demons are subject to you, but that
your names are written in the heavens '^" For
the fact that our names are written in heaven
is a proof of our virtuous life, but to cast out
demons is a favour of the Saviour who granted
it. Wherefore to those who boasted in signs
but not in virtue, and said : " Lord, in Thy
name did we not cast out demons, and in Thy
name did many mighty works's?" He answered,
" Verily I say unto you, I know you not ;" for
the Lord knoweth not the ways of the wicked.
But we ought always to pray, as I said above,
that we may receive the gift of discerning
spirits ; that, as it is written 2°, we may not
believe every spirit.
39. ' I should have liked to speak no further
and to say nothing from my own promptings,
satisfied with what I have said : but lest you
should think that I speak at random and be-
lieve that I detail thesethings without experience
or truth ; for this cause even though I should
become as a fool, yet the I^ord who heareth
knoweth the clearness of myconscience,and that
it is not for my own sake, but on account of your
affection towards me and at your petition that
I again tell what I saw of the practices of evil
spirits. How often have they called me blessed
and I have cursed them in the name of the
Lord ! How often have they predicted the
rising of the river, and I answered them, " What
have you to do with it?" Once they came
threatening and surrounded me like soldiers in
full armour. At another time they filled the
hquse with horses, wild beasts and creeping
things, and I sang: "Some in chariots and
some in horses, but we will boast in the name
of the Lord our God ' ;" and at the prayers they
were turned to flight by the Lord. Once they
came in darkness, bearing the appearance of a
light, and said, " We are come to give thee a
light, Antony." But I closed my eyes and
prayed, and immediately the light of the
wicked ones was quenched. And a few
months after they came as though singing
psalms and babbling the words of Scripture,
" But I like a deaf man, heard not ^" Once they
shook the cells with an earthquake, but I
continued praying with unshaken heart. And
*8 Luke X. 20.
*> I John iv. I.
2 Ps. xxxviii. 14.
19 Matt. vii. 3a.
I Ps. XX. 7.
3 /ixoi'ao'Trjpior.
LIFE OF ANTONY.
207
after this they came again making noises,
whistling and dancing. But as I prayed and
lay singing psalms to myself they forthwith
began to lament and weep, as if their strength
had failed them. But I gave glory to the Lord,
who had brought down and made an example
of their daring and madness.
40, ' Once a demon exceeding high appeared
with pomp, and dared to say, " I am the power
of God and I am Providence, what dost thou
wish that I shall give thee?" But I then so
much the more breathed upon him 3*, and spoke
the name of Christ, and set about to smite him.
And I seemed to have smitten him, and forth-
with he, big as he was, together with all his
demons, disappeared at the name of Christ.
At another time, while I was fasting, he
came full of craft, under the semblance of a
monk, with what seemed to be loaves, and gave
me counsel, saying, " Eat and cease from thy
many labours. Thou also art a man and art like
to fall sick." But I, perceiving his device, rose
up to pray ; and he endured it not, for he
departed, and through the door there seemed
to go out as it were smoke. How often in the
desert has he displayed what resembled gold,
that I should only touch it and look on it.
But I sang psalms against him, and he vanished
away. Often they would beat me with stripes,
and I repeated again and again, " Nothing shall
separate me from the love of Christ \" and at
this they rather fell to beating one another.
Nor was it I that stayed them and destroyed
their power, but it was the Lord, who said, " I
beheld Satan as lightning fall from Heaven S;"
but T, children, mindful of the Apostle's words,
transferred^ this to myself, that you might learn
not to faint in discipline, nor to fear the devil
nor the delusions of the demons.
41. 'And since I have become a fool in
detailing these things, receive this also as
an aid to your safety and fearlessness; and
believe me for I do not lie. Once some
one knocked at the door of my cell, and
going forth I saw one who seemed of great
size and tall. Then when I enquired, "Who
art thou? " he said, " I am Satan." Then when
I said, "Why art thou here?" he answered,
"Why do the monks and all other Chris-
tians blame me undeservedly ? Why do they
curse me hourly?" Then I answered, "Where-
fore dost thou trouble them?" He said, "I am
not he who troubles them, but they trouble
themselves, for I am become weak. Have they
not readl, " The swords of the enemy have come
to an end, and thou hast destroyed the cities ?"
I have no longer a place, a weapon, a city.
3» See D.C.A. p. 652.
5 Luke X. i8. fi I Cor. iv. 6.
♦ Rom. viii. 35.
7 Ps. ix. 6.
The Christians are spread everywhere, and at
length even the desert is filled with monks.
Let them take heed to themselves, and let them
not curse me undeservedly." Then I mar-
velled at the grace of the Lord, and said to
him : " Thou who art ever a liar and never
speakest the truth, this at length, even against
thy will, thou hast truly spoken. For the
coming of Christ hath made thee weak, and He
hath cast thee down and stripped thee." But
he having heard the Saviour's name, and not
being able to bear the burning from it,
vanished.
42. ' If, therefore, the devil himself confesses
that his power is gone, we ought utterly to de-
spise both him and his demons ; and since the
enemy with his hounds has but devices of
this sort, we, having got to know their weak-
ness, are able to despise them. Wherefore let
us not despond after this fashion, nor let us
have a thought of cowardice in our heart, nor
frame fears for ourselves, saying, I am afraid
lest a demon should come and overthrow me ;
lest he should lift me up and cast me down ;
or lest rising against me on a sudden he con-
found me. Such thoughts let us not have in
mind at all, nor let us be sorrowful as though
we were perishing ; but rather let us be courage-
ous and rejoice always, believing that we are
safe Let us consider in our soul that the Lord
is with us, who put the evil spirits to flight
and broke their power. Let us consider and
lay to heart that while the Lord is with us, our
foes can do us no hurt. For when they come
they approach us in a form corresponding to the
state in which they discover us^, and adapt
their delusions to the condition of mind in
which they find us. If, therefore, they find us
timid and confused, they forthwith beset the
place, like robbers, having found it unguarded ;
and what we of ourselves are thinking, they
do, and more also. For if they find us faint-
hearted and cowardly, they mightily increase our
terror, by their delusions and threats ; and with
these the unhappy soul is thenceforth tormented.
But if they see us rejoicing in the Lord, con-
templating the bliss of the future, mindful of
the Lord, deeming all things in His hand, and
that no evil spirit has any strength against the
Christian, nor any power at all over any one —
when they behold the soul fortified with these
thoughts — they are discomfited and turned
backwards. Thus the enemy, seeing Job fenced
round with them, withdrew from him ; but
finding Judas unguarded, him he took captive.
Thus if we are wishful to despise the enemy,
let us ever ponder over the things of the Lord,
and let the soul ever rejoice in hope. And we
8 'An important p-iychological observation.' (Schaff, Ch. Hisf.y
208
VITA S. ANTONI.
shall see the snares of the demon are like
smoke, and the evil ones themselves flee rather
than pursue. For they are, as I said before,
exceeding fearful, ever looking forward to the
fire prepared for them.
43. ' And for your fearlessness against them
hold this sure sign — whenever there is any
apparition, be not prostrate with fear, but what-
soever it be, first boldly ask. Who art thou?
And from whence comest thou? And if it
should be a vision of holy ones they will
assure you, and change your fear into joy. But
if the vision should be from the devil, imme-
diately it becomes feeble, beholding your firm
purpose of mind. For merely to ask, Who art
thou 9 ? and whence comest thou ? is a proof of
coolness. By thus asking, the son of Nun
learned who his helper was ; nor did the enemy
escape the questioning of Daniel '°.'
44. While Antony was thus speaking all re-
joiced ; in some the love of virtue increased, in
others carelessness was thrown aside, the self-
conceit of others was stopped ; and all were per-
suaded to despise the assaults of the Evil One,
and marvelled at the grace given to Antony from
the Lord for the discerning of spirits. So their
cells were in the mountains, like tabernacles,
filled with holy bands of men who sang psalms,
loved reading, fasted, prayed, rejoiced in the
hope of things to come, laboured in alms-
giving, and preserved love and harmony one
with another. And truly it was possible, as it
were, to behold a land set by itself, filled with
piety and justice. For then there was neither
the evil-doer, nor the injured, nor the reproaches
of the tax-gatherer : but instead a multitude of
ascetics ; and the one purpose of them all was
to aim at virtue. So that any one beholding the
cells again, and seeing such good order among
the monks, would lift up his voice and say,
' How goodly are thy dwellings, O Jacob, and
thy tents, O Israel ; as shady glens and as a
garden" by a river; as tents which the Lord
hath pitched, and like cedars near waters ".'
45. Antony, however, according to his
custom, returned alone to his own cell,
increased his discipline, and sighed daily as he
thought of the mansions in Heaven, having his
desire fixed on them, and pondering over the
shortness of man's life. And he used to eat
and sleep, and go about all other bodily neces-
sities with shame when he thought of the
spiritual faculties of the soul. So often, when
about to eat with any other hermits, recollect-
ing the spiritual food, he begged to be excused,
and departed far off from them, deeming it a
matter for shame if he should be seen eating by
others. He used, however, when by himself.
9 Josh. V. 13.
" LXX. ' gardens.'
»o Susann. 51 — 55^
'2 Num. zxiv. 5, 6.
to eat through bodily necessity, but often also
with the brethren ; covered with shame on
these occasions, yet speaking boldly words of
help. And he used to say that it behoved a
man to give all his time to his soul rather than
his body, yet to grant a short space to the body
through its necessities ; but all the more
earnestly to give up the whole remainder to
the soul and seek its profit, that it might not
be dragged down by the pleasures of the body,
but, on the contrary, the body might be in sub-
jection to the soul. For this is that which was
spoken by the Saviour : ' Be not anxious for
your life what ye shall eat, nor for your body
what ye shall put on. And do ye seek not
what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, and
be not of a doubtful mind. For all these
things the nations of the world seek after. But
your Father knoweth that ye have need of all
these things. Howbeit seek ye first His
Kingdom, and all these things shall be added
unto you ^3.'
46. After this the Church was seized by
the persecution which then '^ took place under
Maximinus, and when the holy martyrs were
led to Alexandria, Antony also followed, leav-
ing his cell, and saying, Let us go too, that if
called, we may contend or behold them that are
contending. And he longed to suffer martyr-
dom, but not being willing to give himself up,
he ministered to the confessors in the mines
and in the prisons. And he was very zealous
in the judgment hall to stir up to readi-
ness those who were summoned when in
their contest, while those who were being
martyred he received and brought on their
way until they were perfected. The judge,
therefore, beholding the fearlessness of Antony
and his companions, and their zeal in this
matter, commanded that no monk should appear
in the judgment hall, nor remain at all in the
city. So all the rest thought it good to hide
themselves that day, but Antony gave so little
heed to the command that he washed his
garment, and stood all next day on a raised
place before them, and appeared in his best
before the governor. Therefore when all the
rest wondered at this, and the governor saw
and passed by with his array, he stood fear-
lessly, shewing the readiness of us Christians.
For, as I said before, he prayed himself to be a
martyr, wherefore he seemed as one grieved
that he had not borne his witness. But the
Lord was keeping him for our profit and that
of others, that he should become a teacher to
many of the discipUne which he had learned
from the Scriptures. For many only beholding
his manner of life were eager to be imitators
»3 Matt. vi. 31 ; Luke xii. 2g.
M A.D. 303 — 3IX.
LIFE OF ANTONY.
209
L
of his ways. So he again ministered as usual
to the confessors, and as though he were their
fellow captive he laboured in his ministry.
47. And when at last the persecution ceased,
and the blessed Bishop Peter ^s had borne his
testimony. Antony departed, and again with-
drew to his cell, and was there daily a martyr
to his conscience, and contending in the con-
flicts of faitL And his discipline was much
severer, for he yrsiS ever fasting, and he had a
garment of hair C'n the inside, while the outside
was skin, which he kept until his end. And he
neither bathed his body with water to free him-
self from filth, nor did he ever wash his feet,
nor even endure so much as to put them into
water, unless compelled by necessity. Nor did
any one even see him unclothed, nor his body
naked at all, except after his death, when he
was buried.
48. When therefore he had retired and deter-
mined to fix a time, after which neither to go
forth himself nor admit anybody, Martinian, a
military officer, came and disturbed Antony.
For he had a daughter afflicted with an evil
spirit. But when he continued for a long while
knocking at the door^ and asking him to come
out and pray to God for his child, Antony, not
bearing to open, looked out from above and
said, ' Man, why dost thou call on me ? I also
am a man even as you. But if you believe on
Christ whom I serve, go, and according as you
believe, pray to God, and it shall come to pass.'
Straightway, therefore, he departed, believing
and calling upon Christ, and he received his
daughter cleansed from tiae devil. Many other
things also through Antony the Lord did, who
saith, ' Seek and it shall be given unto you '^'
For many of the sufferers, when he would not
open his door, slept outside his cell, and by
their faith and sincere prayers were healed.
49. But when he saw himself beset by many,
and not suffered to withdraw himself according
to his intent as he wished, fearing because of
the signs which the Lord wrought by him, that
either he should be puffed up, or that some
other should think of him above what he ought
to think, he considered and set off to go into
the upper Thebaid, among those to whom he
was unknown. And having received loaves
from the brethren, he sat down by the bank of
the river, looking whether a boat would go by,
that, having embarked thereon, he might go up
the river with them. While he was considering
these things, a voice came to him from above,
'Antony, whither goest thou and wherefore?'
But he no way disturbed, but as he had
been accustomed to be called '^* often thus.
'5 Martyred on Nov. 25, 311, cf. Eus. H.E. vii. 32.
'6 Luke xi. 9 '** See on this subject 'Phantasms of the
Living," \ol. I, p. 480 sq (Triibner, 1886).
VOL. IV
giving ear to it, answered, saying, ' Since tlie
multitude permit me not to be still, I wish to go
into the upper Thebaid on account of the
many hindrances that come upon me here, and
especially because they demand of me things
beyond my power.' But the voice said unto
him, * Even though you should go into the
Thebaid, or even though, as you have in mind,
you should go down to the Bucolia'7, you will
have to endure more, aye, double the amount
of toil. But if you wish really to be in quiet,
depart now into the inner desert.' And when
Antony said, ' Who will show me the way for I
know it not ?' immediately the voice pointed out
to him Saracens about to go that way. So
Antony approached, and drew near them, and
asked that he might go with them into the
desert. And they, as though they had been
commanded by Providence, received him
willingly. And having journeyed with them
three days and three nights, he came to a very
lofty mountain, and at the foot of the mountain
ran a clear spring, whose waters were sweet
and very cold ; outside there was a plain and a
few uncared-for palm trees.
50. Antony then, as it were, moved by God,
loved the place ^^, for this was the spot which
he who had spoken with him by the banks of
the river had pointed out. So having first
received loaves from his fellow travellers, he
abode in the mountain alone, no one else being
with him. And recognising it as his own
home, he remained in that place for the future.
But the Saracens, having seen the earnestness
of Antony, purposely used to journey that way,
and joyfully brought him loaves, while now and
then the palm trees also afforded him a poor
and frugal relish. But after this, the brethren
learning of the place, like children mindful of
their father, took care to send to him. But
when Antony saw that the bread was the cause
of trouble and hardships to some of them, to
spare the monks this, he resolved to ask some
of those who came to bring him a spade, an
axe, and a little corn. And when these were
brought, he went over the land round the
mountain, and having found a small plot of
suitable ground, tilled it ; and having a plentiful
supply of water for watering, he sowed. This
doing year by year, he got his bread from
thence, rejoicing that thus he would be trouble-
some to no one, and because he kept himself
from being a burden to anybody. But after
this, seeing again that people came, he cultiva-
ted a few pot-herbs, that he who came to him
might have some slight solace after the labour
17 In Lower Egypt.
18 Mount Colzim, seven hours distant from the Red Sea, when
an old cloister still preserves his name and memory (Scbaflf, C/t,
Hist. Nie. p. 183).
2IO
VITA S. ANTONI.
of that hard journey. At first, however, the
wild beasts in the desert, coming because of
the water, often injured his seeds and hus-
bandry. But he, gently laving hold of one of
them, said to them all, ' Why do you hurt me,
when I hurt none of you ? Depart, and in the
name of the Lord come not nigh this spot.'
And from that time forward, as though fearful
of his command, they no more came near the
place.
51. So he was alone in the inner moun-
tain, spending his time in prayer and dis-
cipline. And the brethren who served him
asked that they might come every month and
bring him oHves, pulse and oil, for by now he
was an old man. There then he passed his
life, and endured such great wrestlings, * Not
against flesh and blood ^9,' as it is written, but
against opi:)Osing demons, as we learned from
chose who visited him. For there they heard
tumults, many voices, and, as it were, the clash
of arms. At night they saw the mountain be-
come full of wild beasts, and him also fighting
as though against visible beings, and praying
against them. And those who came to him he
encouraged, while kneeling he contended and
prayed to the Lord. Surely it was a marvellous
thing that a man, alone in such a desert, feared
neither the demons who rose up against him,
nor the fierceness of the four-footed beasts and
creeping things, for all they were so many.
But in truth, as it is written, ' He trusted in
the Lord as Mount Sion^°,' with a mind un-
shaken and undisturbed; so that the demons
rather fled from him, and the wild beasts, as it
is written *', ' kept peace with him.'
52. The devil, therefore, as David says in
the Psalms', observed Antony and gnashed his
teeth against him. But Antony was consoled
by the Saviour and continued unhurt by his
wiles and varied devices. As he was watching
in the night the devil sent wild beasts against
him. And almost all the hyenas in that desert
came forth from their dens and surrounded
him ; and he was in the midst, while each one
threatened to bite. Seeing that it was a trick
of the enemy he said to them all : ' If ye have
received power against me I am ready to be
devoured by you ; but if ye were sent against
me by demons, stay not, but depart, for I am
a servant of Christ.' When Antony said this
they fled, driven by that word as with a whip.
53. A few days after, as he was working (for
he was careful to work hard), some one stood
at the door and pulled the plait which he was
working, for he used to weave baskets, which
he gave to those who came in return for what
(9 £ph. vi. 19.
*° Ps. cxxv. I.
* Ps. XXXV. 16.
« Job V. 83.
they brought him. And rising up he saw a
beast like a man to the thighs but having legs
and feet like those of an ass. And Antony
only signed himself and said, *I am a servant
of Christ. If thou art sent against me, behold
I am here.' But the beast together with his
evil spirits fled, so that, through his speed,
he fell and died. And the death of the beast
was the fall of the demons. For they strove
in all manner of ways to lead Antony from
the desert and were not able.
54. And once being asked by the monks to
come down and visit them and their abodes
after a time, he journeyed with those who came
to him. And a camel carried the loaves and the
water for them. For all that desert is dry, and
there is no water at all that is fit to drink, save
in that mountain from whence they drew the
water, and in which Antony's cell was. So
when the water failed them on their way, and
the heat was very great, they all were in
danger. For having gone round the neighbour-
hood and finding no water, they could walk
no further, but lay on the ground and despair-
ing of themselves, let the camel go. But the
old man seeing that they were all in jeopardy,
groaning in deep grief, departed a fittle way
from them, and kneeling down he stretched
forth his hands and prayed. And immediately
the Lord made water to well forth where he
had stood praying, and so all drank and were
revived. And having filled their bottles they
sought the camel and found her, for the rope
happened to have caught in a stone and so
was held fast. Having led it and watered it
they placed the bottles on its back and finished
their journey in safety. And when he came to
the outer cells all saluted him, looking on him
as a father. And he too, as though bringing
supplies from the mountain, entertained them
with his words and gave them a share of help.
And again there was joy in the mountains,
zeal for improvement and consolation through
their mutual faith. Antony also rejoiced when
he beheld the earnestness of the monks,
and his sister grown old in virginity, and
that she herself also was the leader of other
virgins.
55. So after certain days he went m agam
to the mountain. And henceforth many re-
sorted to him, and others who were suftering
ventured to go in. To all the monks there-
fore who came to him, he continually gave
this precept : ' Believe on the Lord and love
Him ; keep yourselves from filthy thoughts
and fleslily pleasures, and as it is written in
the Proverbs, be not deceived "by the fulness
of the belly"." Pray continually ; avoid vain-
= Prov, xxiv. 15, LXX.
LIFE OF ANTONY.
2rr
glory; sing psalms before sleep and on awaking;
hold in your heart the commandments of
Scripture ; be mindful of the works of the
saints that your souls being put in remem-
brance of the commandments may be brought
into harmony with the zeal of the saints.' And
especially he counselled them to meditate con-
tinually on the apostle's word, 'Let not the
sun go down upon your wrath '.' And he con-
sidered this was spoken of all commandments
in common, and that not on wrath alone, but
not on any other sin of ours, ought the sun to
go down. For it was good and needful that
neither the sun should condemn us for an evil
by day nor the moon for a sin by night, or
even for an evil thought. That this state may
be preserved in us it is good to hear the apostle
and keep his words, for he says, ' Try your
own selves and prove your own selves'^.' Daily,
therefore, let each one take from himself the
tale of his actions both by day and night ; and
if he have sinned, let him cease from it ; while
if he have not, let him not be boastful. But
let him abide in that which is good, without
being negligent, nor condemning his neigh-
bours, nor justifying himself, ' until the Lord
come who searcheth out hidden things s,' as
saith the blessed apostle Paul. For often un-
awares we do things that we know not of ;
but the Lord seeth all things. Wherefore
committing the judgment to Him, let us have
sympathy one with another. Let us bear each
other's burdens^ : but let us examine our own
selves and hasten to fill up that in which
we are lacking. And as a safeguard against
sin let the following be observed. Let us
each one note and write down our actions
and the impulses of our soul as though we
were going to relate them to each other. And
be assured that if we should be utterly ashamed
to have them known, we shall abstain from sin
and harbour no base thoughts in our mind.
For who wishes to be seen while sinning ? or
who will not rather lie after the commission
of a sin, through the wish to 'escape notice ?
As then while we are looking at one another,
we would not commit carnal sin, so if we
record our thoughts as though about to tell
them to one another, we shall the more easily
keep ourselves free from vile thoughts through
shame lest they should be known. Wherefore
let that which is written be to us in place
of the eyes of our fellow hermits, that blush-
ing as much to write as if we had been
caught, we may never think of what is un-
seemly. Thus fashioning ourselves we shall
be able to keep the body in subjection, to
3 Eph. iv. 26.
5 I Cor. iv. s ; Rom. ii. 16.
4 2 Cor. xiii. $.
6 Gal. vi. 6.
please the Lord, and to trample on the devices
of the enemy.
56. This was the advice he gave to those
who came to him. And with those who suf-
fered he sympathised and prayed. And oft-
times the Lord heard him on behalf of many :
yet he boasted not because he was heard, nor
did he murmur if he were not. But always he
gave the Lord thanks and besought the sufferer
to be patient, and to know that healing be-
longed neither to him nor to man at all, but
only to the Lord, who doeth good when and
to whom He will. The sufferers therefore
used to receive the words of the old man
as though they "were a cure, learning not to be
downhearted but rather to be long-suffering.
And those who were healed were taught
not to give thanks to Antony but to God
alone.
57. Wherefore a man, Fronto by name, who
was an officer of the Court and had a terrible
disease, for he used to bite his own tongue and
was in danger of injury to his eyes, having
come to the mountain, asked Antony to
pray for him. But Antony said to him, ' De-
part and thou shalt be healed.' But when he
was violent and remained within some days,
Antony waited and said, ' If thou stayest here,
thou canst not be healed. Go, and having
come into Egypt thou shall see the sign
wrought in thee.' And he believed and went.
And as soon as he set eyes on Egypt his
sufferings ceased, and the man became whole
according to the word of Antony, which the
Saviour had revealed to him in prayer.
58. There was also a maiden from Busins
TripoUtana, who had a terrible and very
hideous disorder. For the runnings of her
eyes, nose, and ears fell to the ground and
immediately became worms. She was para-
lysed also and squinted. Her parents having
heard of monks going to Antony, and believ-
ing on the Lord who healed 7 the woman with
the issue of blood, asked to be allowed, to-
gether with their daughter, to journey with
them. And when they suffered them, the
parents together with the girl, remained out-
side the mountain with Paphnutius, the con-
fessor and monk ; but the monks went in to
Antony. And when they only wished to tell
about the damsel, he anticipated them, and de-
tailed both the sufferings of the child and how
she journeyed with them. Then when they
asked that she should be admitted, Antony
did not allow it, but said, ' Go, and if she be
not dead, you will find her healed : for the
accomplishment of this is not mine, that she
should come to me, wretched man that I am,
7 Matt. ix. 20.
P 2
212
VITA S. ANTONI.
but her healing is the wor"k of the Saviour, who
in every place sheweth His pity to them that
call upon Him. Wherefore the Lord hath
inclined to her as she prayed, and His loving-
kindness hath declared to me that He will heal
the child where she now is.' So the wonder
took place ; and going out they found the
parents rejoicing and the girl whole.
59. But when two brethren were coming
to him, the water failed on the way, and one
died and the other was at the point of death,
for he had no strength to go on, but lay upon
the ground expecting to die. But Antony
sitting in the mountain called two monks,
who chanced to be there, and urged them
saying, 'Take a pitcher of water and run on
the road towards Eg3'pt. For of two men who
were coming, one is already dead and the other
will die unless you hasten. For this has been
revealed to me as I was praying.' The monks
therefore went, and found one lying dead,
whom they buried, and the other they restored
with water and led him to the old man. For
it was a day's journey?^ But if any one asks,
why he did not speak before the other died,
the question ought not to be asked. For the
punishment of death was not Antony's but
God's, who also judged the one and revealed
the condition of the other. But the marvel
here was only in the case of Antony : that he,
sitting in the mountain had his heart watchful,
and had the Lord to show him things afar off
60. And this is so, for once again he was
sitting on the mountain, and looking up saw in
the air some one being borne upwards, and there
was much joy among those who met him. Then
wondering and deeming a company of that
kind to be blessed, he prayed to learn what
this might be. And immediately a voice came
to him : ' This is the soul of Amun, the monk
at Nitria.' Now Amun had persevered in the
discipline up to old age ; and the distance
from Nitria to the mountain where Antony
was, was thirteen days' journey. The com-
panions of Antony therefore, seeing the
old man amazed, asked to learn, and heard
that Amun was just dead^. And he was well
known, for he had stayed there very often, and
many signs had been wrought by his means.
And this is one of them. Once when he had
need to cross the river called Lycus (now it
was the season of the flood), he asked his com-
rade Theodorus to remain at a distance, that
they should not see one another naked as they
swam the water. Then when Theodorus was
departed he again felt ashamed even to see
7» For similar cases, cf. 'Phantasms of the Livine,* vol. 2.
p. 368, &c. '
8 The same story is told (by Bede in his Life) of St. Cuthbert,
who saw the soul of St. Aidan being carried to Ineaven. Amun
ivas probably the recipient of the letter, No. 48 in this volume.
himself naked. While, therefore, he was pon-
dering filled with shame, on a sudden he was
borne over to the other side. Theodorus,
therefore, himself being a good man, ap-
proached, and seeing Amun across first without
a drop of water falling from him, enquired
how he had got over. And when he saw
that Amun was unwilling to tell him, he held
him by the feet and declared that he would
not let him go before he had learned it from
him. So Amun seeing the determination of
Theodorus especially from what he had said,
and having asked him to tell no man before his
death, told him that he had been carried and
placed on the further side. And that he had
not even set foot on the water, nor was that
possible for man, but for the Lord alone and
those whom He permits, as He did for the great
apostle Peter9. Theodorus therefore told this
after the death of Amun. And the monks
to whom Antony spoke concerning Amun's
death marked the day ; and when the brethren
came up from Nitria thirty days after, they en-
quired of them and learned that Amun had
fallen asleep at that day and hour in which
the old man had seen his soul borne upwards.
And both these and the others marvelled at
the purity of Antony's soul, how he had im-
mediately learned that which was taking place
at a distance of thirteen days' journey, and had
seen the soul as it was taken up.
61. And Archelaus too, the Count, on a
time having found him in the outer mountain,
asked him merely to pray for Polycratia
of Laodicea, an excellent and Christian 9*
maiden, for she suffered terribly in the stomach
and side through over much discipline, and
was altogether weakly of body. Antony prayed
therefore, and the Count noted the day
in which the prayer was made, and having
departed to Laodicea he found the maiden
whole. And having enquired when and on
what day she was relieved of her infirmity, he
produced the paper on which he had written
the time of the prayer, and having read it he
immediately shewed the writing on the paper.
And all wondered when they knew that the
Lord had relieved her of pain at the time
when Antony was praying and invoking the
goodness of the Saviour on her behalf.
62. And concerning those who came to
him, he often foretold some days or sometimes
a month beforehand what was the cause of
their coming. For some came only for the
sake of seeing him, others through sickness,
and others suffering from evil spirits. And
all thought the labour of the journey neither
trouble nor loss. For each Oiie returned
9 Matt. xiv. aS.
9» XpLo-Tocjiopos, lit. Christ-bearing.
LIFE OF ANTONY.
213
aware that he had received benefit. But
though saying such things and beholding such
sights, he used to ask that no one should
wonder at him for this ; but should rather
marvel at the Lord for having granted to
us men to know Him as far as our powers
extended.
6^. Afterwards, on another occasion, having
descended to the outer cells, he was asked
to enter a vessel and pray with the monks,
and he alone perceived an exceedingly un-
pleasant smell. But those on board said that
the stench arose from the fish and salt meat
in the ship. He replied however, the smell
was different from that ; and while he was
speaking, a youth with an evil spirit, who had
come and hidden himself in the ship, cried
out. But the demon being rebuked in the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ departed from
him, and the man became whole. And all
knew that the evil smell arose from the demon.
64. And another^ a person of rank, came to
him, possessed by a demon ; and the demon
was "so terrible that the man possessed did
not know that he was coming to Antony.
But he even ate the excreta from his body.
So those who brought him besought Antony
to pray for him. And Antony pitying the
young man prayed and kept watch with him
all the night. And about dawn the young
man suddenly attacked Antony and gave him
a push. But when those who came with
him were angry, Antony said, ' Be not angry
with the young man, for it is not he, but the
demon which is in him. And being rebuked
and commanded to go into dry places, the
demon became raging mad, and he has done
this. Wherefore give thanks to the Lord, for
his attack on me thus is a sign of the de-
parture of the evil spirit.' When Antony had
said this, straightway the young man had be-
come whole, and having come at last to his
right mind, knew where he was, and saluted
the old man and gave thanks to God.
65. And many monks have related with the
greatest agreement and unanimity that many
other such like things were done by him. But
still these do not seem as marvellous as certain
other things appear to be. For once, when
about to eat, having risen up to pray about the
ninth hour, he perceived that he was caught
up in the spirit, and, wonderful to tell, he
stood and saw himself, as it were, from outside
himself, and that he was led in the air by
certain ones. Next certain bitter and terrible
beings stood in the air and wished to hinder
him from passing through. But when his con-
ductors opposed them, they demanded whether
he was not accountable to them. And when
they wished to sum up the account from his
birth, Antony's conductors stopped them,
saying, 'The Lord hath wiped out the sins from
his birth, but from the time he became a monk,
and devoted himself to God, it is permitted
you to make a reckoning.' Then when they
accused him and could not convict him, his
way was free and unhindered. And immediately
he saw himself, as it were, coming and stand-
ing by himself, and again he was Antony as
before. Then forgetful of eating, he remained
the rest of the day and through the whole of
the night groaning and praying. For he was
astonished when he saw against what mighty
opponents our wrestling is, and by what labours
we have to pass through the air. And he
remembered that this is what the Apostle
said, 'according to the prince of the power of
the air ^°.' For in it the enemy hath power to
fight and to attempt to hinder those who pass
through. Wherefore most earnestly he exhor-
ted, * Take up the whole armour of God, that
ye may be able to withstand in the evil day ",'
that the enemy, ' having no evil thing to say
against us, may be ashamed ^^' And we who
have learned this, let us be mindful of the
Apostle when he says, ' whether in the body I
know not, or whether out of the body I know
not; God knoweth '3.' But Paul was caught up
unto the third heaven, and having heard things
unspeakable he came down ; while Antony saw
that he had come to the air, and contended
until he was free.
66. And he had also this favour granted
him. For as he was sitting alone on the
mountain, if ever he was in perplexity in
his meditations, this was revealed to him
by Providence in prayer. And the happy
man, as it is written, was taught of God '+.
After this, when he once had a discussion
with certain men who had come to him
concerning the state of the soul and of what
nature its place will be after this life, the
following night one from above called him,
saying, ' Antony, rise, go out and . look.'
Having gone out therefore (for he knew whom
he ought to obey) looking up, he beheld one
standing and reaching to the clouds, tall,
hideous, and fearful, and others ascending as
though they were winged. And the figure
stretched forth his hands, and some of those
who were ascending were stayed by him, while
others flew above, and having escaped heaven-
ward, were borne aloft free from care. At such,
therefore, the giant gnashed his teeth, but re-
joiced over those who fell back. And forthwith
a voice came to Antony, ' Understandest thou
what thou seest ? ' And his understanding was
10 Eph. ii. 2. «« Eph. vi. 13. " Tit. ii. 8.
'3 2 Cor. xii. 2. '4 Isai. liv. 13; John vi. J5.
214
VITA S. ANTONJ.
opened, and he understood that it was the pass-
ing of souls, and that the tall being who stood
was the enemy who envies the faithful. And
those whom he caught and stopped from pass-
ing through are accountable to him, while those
whom he was unable to hold as they passed
upwards had not been subservient to him. So
having seen this, and as it were being re-
minded, he struggled the more daily to advance
towards those things which were before. And
these visions he was unwilling to tell, but as he
spent much time in prayer, and was amazed,
when those who were with him pressed him
with questions and forced him, he was com-
pelled to speak, as a father who cannot with-
hold ought from his children. And he thought
that as his conscience was clear, the account
would be beneficial for them, that they might
learn that discipline bore good fruit, and that
visions were oftentimes the solace of their
labours.
67. Added to this he was tolerant in disposi-
tion and humble in spirit. For though he was
such a man, he observed the rule of the Church
most rigidly, and was willing that all the clergy
should be honoured above himself'?. For he
was not ashamed to bow his head to bishops
and presbyters, and if ever a deacon came to him
for help he discoursed with him on what was
profitable, but gave place to him in prayer, not
being ashamed to learn himself. For often he
would ask questions, and desired to listen to
those who were present, and if any one said any-
thing that was useful he confessed that he was
profited. And besides, his countenance had a
great and wonderful grace. This gift also he
had from the Saviour. For if he were present
in a great company of monks, and any one who
did not know him previously, wished to see him,
immediately coming forward he passed by the
rest, and hurried to Antony, as though attracted
by his appearance. Yet neither in height nor
breadth was he conspicuous above others, but
in the serenity of his manner and the purity of
his soul. For as his soul was free from dis-
turbances, his outward appearance was calm ;
so from the joy of his soul he possessed a
cheerful countenance, and from his bodily
movements could be perceived the condition
of his soul, as it is written, 'When the heart
is merry the countenance is cheerful, but when
it is sorrowful it is cast down'^' Thus Jacob
recognised the counsel Laban had in his heart,
and said to his wives, 'The countenance of
your father is not as it was yesterday and the
day before '9.' Thus Samuel recognised David,
17 This was by no means universal among monks : Athan.
argues to Dracontius (cc. 8, 9) against the monastic tendency to
think little of the clergy. Here, he propounds the example of
Antony for the imitation of the ' peregrini fratres."
»8 Prov. XV. 13. 19 Gen. xxxi. 5 ; i Sam. xvi. 12, xvii. 32.
for he had mirthful eyes, and teeth white as
milk. Thus Antony was recognised, for he
was never disturbed, for his soul was at peace ;
he was never downcast, for his mind was
joyous.
68. And he was altogether wonderful in faith
and religious, for he never held communion
with the Meletian schismatics, knowing their
wickedness and apostacy from the beginning ;
nor had he friendly dealings with the Mani-
chseans or any other heretics j or, if he had, only
as far as advice that they should cliange to
piety. For he thought and asserted that inter-
course with these was harmful and destructive
to the soul. In the same manner also he
loathed the heresy of the x^rians, and exhorted
all neither to approach them nor to hold their
erroneous belief. And once when certain
Arian madmen came to him, when he had
questioned them and learned their impiety, he
drove them from the mountain, saying that
their words were worse than the poison of
serpents.
69. And once also the Arians having lyingly
asserted that Antony's opinions were the same
as theirs, he was displeased and wroth against
them. Then being summoned by the bishops
and all the brethren, he descended from the
mountain, and having entered Alexandrians*,
he denounced the Arians, saying that their
heresy was the last of all and a forerunner of
Antichrist. And he taught the people that the
Son of God was not a created being, neither
had He come into being from non-existence,
but that He was the Eternal ^^'ord and
Wisdom of the Essence of the Father. And
therefore it was impious to say, ' there was a
time when He was not,' for the Word was
always co-existent with the Faiher. Wherefore
have no fellowship with the most impious
Arians. For there is no communion be-
tween light and darkness^". For you are good
Christians, but they, when they say that the
Son of the Father, the Word of God, is a
created being, differ in nought from the
heathen, since they worship that which is
created, rather than God the creator'. But
believe ye that the Creation itself is angry with
them because they number the Creator, the
Lord of all, by whom all things came into
being, with those things which were originated.
70. All the people, therefore, rejoiced when
they heard the anti-Christian heresy anathe-
matised by such a man. And all the people in
the city ran together to see Antony ; and the
Greeks and those who are called their Priests,
»9» July 25 — 27, 338, Fest. Ind. x. *» 2 Cor. vL 14.
I Orat. ii. 23, &c. This was an argument much used against
Arianism. Antony's arguments may be compared with those of
Ath. in EJ>. Aig 13
LIFE OF ANTONY.
215
came into the church, saying, ' We ask to see
the man of God,* for so they all called him. For
in that place also the Lord cleansed many of
demons, and healed those who were mad. And
many Greeks asked that they might even but
touch the old man, believing that they should
be profited. Assuredly as many became Chris-
tians in those few days as one would have
seen made in a year. Then when some thought
that he was troubled by the crowds, and on this
account turned them all away from him, he
said, undisturbedly, that there were not more of
them than of the demons with whom he wrestled
in the mountain.
71, But when he was departing, and we were
setting him forth on his way, as we ^ arrived
at the gate a woman from behind cried out,
'Stay, thou man of God, my daughter is
grievously vexed by a devil. Stay, I beseech
thee, lest I too harm myself with running.'
And the old man when he heard her, and
was asked by us, willingly stayed. And when
the woman drew near, the child was cast on
the ground. But when Antony had prayed
and called upon the name of Christ, the child
was raised whole,, for the unclean spirit was
gone forth. And the mother blessed God,
and all gave thanks. And Antony himself
also rejoiced, departing to the mountain as
though it were to his own home.
72. And Antony also was exceeding pru-
dent, and the wonder was that although he
had not learned letters, he was a ready-witted
and sagacious man. At all events two Greek
philosophers once came, thinking they could try
their skill on Antony ; and he was in the outer
mountain, and having recognised who they
were from their appearance, he came to them
and said to them by means of an interpreter,
'Why, philosophers, did ye trouble yourselves
so much to come to a foolish man?' And
when they said that he was not a foolish
man, but exceedingly prudent, he said to them,
' If you came to a foolish man, your labour
is superfluous ; but if you think me prudent
become as I am, for we ought to imitate what
is good. And if I had come to you I should
have imitated you ; but if you to me, become
as I am, for I am a Christian.' But they
departed with wonder, for they saw that even
demons feared Antony.
73. And again others such as these met him
in the outer mountain and thought to mock 3
him because he had not learned letters. And
Antony said to them, ' What say ye ? which is
first, mind or letters ? And which is the cause
of which — mind of letters or letters of mind ? '
' This seems to imply Athanasius as the (real or ostensible)
narrator.
3 Of. e. Gent, i, de /near, i, 41, 48. 7.
And when they answered mind is first and the
inventor of letters, Antony said, 'Whoever, there-
fore, hath a sound mind hath not need of letters.'
This answer amazed both the bystanders and
the philosophers, and they departed marveUing
that they had seen so much understanding in
an ignorant man. For his manners were not
rough as though he had been reared in the
mountain and there grown old, but graceful
and polite, and his speech was seasoned with
the divine salt, so that no one was envious,
but rather all rejoiced over him who visited
him.
74. After this again certain others came;
and these were men who were deemed wise
among the Greeks, and they asked him a reason
for our faith in Christ. But when they at-
tempted to dispute concerning the preaching
of the divine Cross and meant to mock,
Antony stopped for a little, and first pitying
their ignorance, said, through an interpreter,
who could skilfully interpret his words, ' Which
is more beautiful, to confess the Cross or to
attribute to those whom you call gods adultery
and the seduction of boys ? For that which is
chosen by us is a sign of courage and a sure
token of the contempt of death, while yours -
are the passions of licentiousness. Next, which
is better, to say that the Word of God was not
changed, but, being the same. He took a human
body for the salvation and well-being of man,
that having shared in human birth He might
make man partake in the divine and spiritual
nature + ; or to liken the divine to senseless
animals and consequently to worship four-
footed beasts, creeping things and the like-
nesses of men? For these things, are the
objects of reverence of you wise men. But
how do you dare to mock us, who say that
Christ has appeared as man, seeing that you,
bringing the soul from heaven, assert that it
has strayed and fallen from the vault of the
sky into body 5? And would that you had said
that it had fallen into human body alone, and
not asserted that it passes and changes into
four-footed beasts and creeping things. For
our faith declares that the coming of Christ
was for the salvation of men. But you err
because you speak of soul as not generated.
And we, considering the power and loving-
kindness of Providence, think that the coming
of Christ in the flesh was not impossible with
God. But you, although calling the soul the
likeness of Mind^, connect it with falls and
4 Cf. de Incar. 54. 3 ; 2 Pet. i. 4.
5 Cf. Plat. PhcEdr. 274 B : but the resemblances is not close
and the relation of this passage to the Phaedrus is probably medi-
ate. I cannot see that the doctrine referred to here is necessarily.
different from that of Plotinus (Enn. IV. iii. 15).
6 Plotinus (Enn. V. i. 3) taught that the soul was, as it were,
an image of Mind, as the uttered word is of the word in the soul
(cf Philo. Vit. Mo: iii. 13).
2l6
VITA S. ANTONI.
feign in your myths that it is changeable, and
consequently introduce the idea that Mind
itself is changeable by reason of the soul. For
whatever is the nature of a likeness, such
necessarily is the nature of that of which it is
a likeness. But whenever you think such a
thought concerning Mind, remember that you
blaspheme even the Father of Mind Himself 7.
75. But concerning the Cross, which would
you say to be the better, to bear it, when a
plot is brought about by wicked men, nor
to be in fear of death brought about under
any form whatever^; or to prate about the
wanderings of Osiris and Isis, the plots of
Syphon, the flight of Cronos, his eating his
children and the slaughter of his father.
For this is your wisdom. But how, if you
mock the Cross, do you not marvel at the
resurrection ? For the same men who told us
of the latter wrote the former. Or why
when you make mention of the Cross are you
silent about the dead who were raised, the blind
who received their sight, the paralytics who
were healed, the lepers who were cleansed, the
walking upon the sea, and the rest of the signs
and wonders, which shew that Christ is no
longer a man but God ? To me you seem to
do yourselves much injustice and not to have
carefully read our Scriptures. But read and
see that the deeds of Christ prove Him to be
God come upon earth for the salvation of men.
76. But do you tell us your religious beliefs.
What can you say of senseless creatures ex-
cept senselessness and ferocity? But if, as I
hear, you wish to say that these things are
spoken of by you as legends, and you alle-
gorize the rape of the maiden Persephone of the
earth ; the lameness of Hephaestus of fire ; and
allegorize the air as Hera, the sun as Apollo,
the moon as Artemis, and the sea as Poseidon ;
none the less, you do not worship God Him-
self, but serve the creature rather than God who
created all things. For if because creation is
beautiful you composed such legends, still it was
fitting that you should stop short at admiration
and not make gods of the things created; so that
you should not give the honour of the Creator
to that which is created. Since, if you do, it is
time for you to divert the honour of the master
builder to the house built by him ; and of the
general to the soldier. What then can you
reply to these things, that we may know
whether the Cross hath anything worthy of
mockery ? ' .
7 It is certainly startling to find Antony, ignorant of Greek and
of letters, reasoning with philosophers upon the doctrines of Neo-
platoni.Mii. His whole lite, excepting two short visits to Alex-
andria, had been spent out of ear-shot of such discussions. Yet it
is not easy to say exactly how much a man of strong mind and
retentive memory may have picked up from the conversation of
those who visited him upon subjects so widely discussed as these
speculations were. 8 X)c Incar. 24. 3
77. But when they were at a loss, turning
hither and thither, Antony smiled and said —
again through an interpreter — 'Sight itself car-
ries the conviction of these things. But as you
prefer to lean upon demonstrative arguments,
and as you, having this art, wish us also not
to worship God, until after such proof, do you
tell first how things in general and specially the
recognition of God are accurately known. Is it
through demonstrative argument or the working
of faith ? And which is better, faith which
comes through the inworking (of God) or de-
monstration by arguments ?' And when they
answered that faith which comes through the
inworking was better and was accurate know-
ledge, Antony said, 'You have answered well,
for faith arises from disposition of soul, but
dialectic from the skill of its inventors. Where-
fore to those who have the inworking through
faith, demonstrative argument is needless, or
even superfluous. For what we know through
faith this you attempt to prove through words,
and often you are not even able to express
what we understand. So the inworking through
faith is better and stronger than your profes-
sional arguments.
78. 'WeChristians therefore hold the mystery
not in the wisdom of Greek arguments, but in
the power of faith richly supplied to us by God
through Jesus Christ. And to show that this
statement is true, behold now, without having
learned letters, we believe in God, knowing
throughHis works Hisprovidenceoverall things.
And to show that our faith is effective, so now
we are supported by faith in Christ, but you
by professional logomachies. The portents of
the idols among you are being done away, but
our faith is extending everywhere. You by
your arguments and quibbles have converted
none from Christianity to Paganism. We, teach-
ing the faith on Christ, expose your supersti-
tion, since all recognise that Christ is God and
the Son of God. You by your eloquence do
not hinder the teaching of Christ. But we by
the mention of Christ crucified put all demons
to flight, whom you fear as if they were gods.
Where the sign of the Cross is 9, magic is weak
and witchcraft has no strength.
79. ' Tell us therefore where your oracles are
now ? Where are the charms of the Egyptians ?
Where the delusions of the magicians ? When
did all these things cease and grow weak
except when the Cross of Christ arose? Is It
then a fit subject for mockery, and not rather
the things brought to nought by it, and con-
victed of weakness ? For this is a marvellous
thing, that yourrehgionwasnever persecuted, but
even was honoured by men in every city, while
9 De Incar. 47. 4.
LIFE OF ANTONY.
217
the followers of Christ are persecuted, and still
our side flourishes and multiplies over yours.
What is yours, though praised and honoured,
perishes, while the faith and teaching of Christ,
though mocked by you and often persecuted
by kings, has filled the world. For when
has the knowledge of God so shone forth ? or
when has self-control and the excellence of
virginity appeared as now ? or when has death
been so despised except when the Cross of
Christ has appeared ? And this no one doubts
when he sees ^° the martyr despismg death for
the sake of Christ, when he sees for Christ's
sake the virgins of the Church keeping them-
selves pure and undefiled.
80. 'And these signs are sufiicient to prove
that the faith of Christ alone is the true reli-
gion. But see ! you still do not believe and
are seeking for arguments. We however make
our proof " not in the persuasive words of
Greek wisdom "," as our teacher has it, but
•we persuade by the faith which manifestly
precedes argumentative proof. Behold there
are here some vexed with demons ;' — now
there were certain who had 'come to him
very disquieted by demons, and bringing
thefil into the midst he said, — 'Do you
cleanse them either by arguments and by what-
ever art or magic you choose, calling upon
your idols, or if you are unable, put away your
strife with us and you shall see the power of
the Cross of Christ.' And having said this he
called upon Christ, and signed the sufferers
two or three times with the sign of the Cross.
And immediately the men stood up whole, and
in their right mind, and forthwith gave thanks
unto the Lord. And the philosophers, as they
are called, wondered, and were astonished
exceedingly at the understanding of the man
and at the sign which had been wrought. But
Antony said, 'Why marvel ye at this ? We are
not the doers of these things, but it is Christ
who worketh them by means of those who
believe on Him. Believe, therefore, also your-
selves, and you shall see that with us there is
no trick of words, but faith through love which is
wrought in us towards Christ ; which if you
yourselves should obtain you will no longer seek
demonstrative arguments, but will consider
faith in Christ sufficient.' These are the words
of Antony. And they marvelling at this also,
saluted him and departed, confessing the bene-
fit they had received from hini ".
81, And the feme of Antony came even
unto kings. For Constantine Augustus, and
10 Compare de Incar. 48. 2. " i Cor. ii. 4.
" The above argument with the philosophers runs upon the
general lines ot that of Athauasius c. Gent. The point which we
miss here is the Euhemerism upon which Athanasius so strongly
insists. This latter view would be naturally less congenial to
Antony's mind than the view that the gods were merely demons.
his sons Constantius and Constans the Augusti
wrote letters to him, as to a father, and begged
an answer from him. But he made nothing
very much of the letters, nor did he rejoice at
the messages, but was the same as he had
been before the Emperors wrote to hirri.
Jjut when they brought him the letters he
called the monks and said, ' Do not be aston-
ished if an emperor writes to us, for he is
a man ; but rather wonder that God wrote the
Law for men and has spoken to us "3 through His
own Son.' And so he was unwilling to receive
the letters, saying that he did not know how to
write an answer to such things. But being
urged by the monks because the emperors were
Christians, and lest they should take offence on
the ground that they had been spurned, he
consented that they should be read, and wrote
an answer approving them because they wor-
shipped Christ, and giving them counsel on
things pertaining to salvation : ' not to think
much of the present, but rather to remember the
judgment that is coming,and to know that Christ
alone was the true and Eternal King.' He
begged them to be merciful and to give heed
to justice and the poor. And they having re-
ceived the answer rejoiced. Thus he was dear
to all, and all desired to consider him as
a father.
82. Being known to be so great a man,
therefore, and having thus given answers to
those who visited him, he returned again
to the inner mountain, and maintained his
wonted discipline. And often when people
came to him, as he was sitting or walking, as it
is vv'ritten in Daniel ''^, he became dumb, and
after a season he resumed the thread of what he
had been saying before to the brethren who
were with him. And his companions per-
ceived that he was seeing a vision. For often
when he was on the mountains he saw what
was happening in Egypt, and told it to Sera-
pion the bishop ^s, who was indoors with
him, and who saw that Antony was wrapped
in a vision. Once as he was sitting and
working, he fell, as it were, into a trance, and
groaned much at what he saw. Then after
a time, having turned to the bystanders with
groans and trembling, he prayed, and falling
on his knees remained so a long time. And
having arisen the old man wept. • His com-
panions, therefore, trembling and terrified,
desired to learn from him what it was. And
they troubled him much, until he was forced to
speak. And with many groans he spake as
follows : ' O, my children, it were better to die
before what has appeared in the vision come to
13 Heb. i. z. 14 Dan. iv. 19 [v. 16 LXX).
15 Of Thmuis, the friend and correspondent of Athanasius ;
see below, § 91.
2l8
VITA S. ANTONI.
pass.' And when again they asked him,
having burst into tears, he said, ' Wrath is
about to seize the Church, and it is on the
point of being given up to men who are hke
senseless beasts. For I saw the table of the
Lord's House, and mules standing around it on
all sides in a ring, and kicking the things
therein, just like a herd kicks when it leaps in
confusion. And you saw,' said he, ' how I
groaned, for I heard a voice saying, " My altar
shall be defiled." ' These things the old man
saw, and after two years the present ^^ inroad
of the Arians and the plunder of the churches
took place, when they violently carried off the
vessels,and made the heathen carry them ; and
when they forced the heathen from the prisons
to join in their services, and in their presence
did upon the Table as they would. Then we
all understood that these kicks of the mules sig-
nified to Antony Avhat the Arians, senselessly
like beasts, are now doing. But when he saw
this vision, he comforted those with him,
saying, ' Be not downcast, my children ; for as
the Lord has been angry, so again will He
heal us, and the Church shall soon again
receive her own order, and shall shine forth as
she is wont. And you shall behold the per-
secuted restored, and wickedness again with-
drawn to its own hiding-place, and pious faith
speaking boldly in every place with all freedom.
Only defile '? not yourselves with the Arians, for
»• Cf. below, 'what the Arians are now doing.' This incidental
notice of time fixes the date of the present passage. Weingarten
in vain attempts to extract some other sense from the Greek, which
is plainness itself. It also fixes the date of Antony's death to
within two years of the troubles in question. The Benedictines
refer the troubles to the intrusion of Gregory ' in 341 ' (really 339),
and the apparently unprecedented character ascribed to the out-
rages by Antony is in favour of this, as well as the fact (Encyc. 3)
that in 339 the heathen are said to have offered sacrifice in the
churches. But the latter is only in superficial agreement with the
Greek text of the present passage^ which speaks of Arian OT/i/afeis
at which heathen were impressed to be present, apparently to make
some show of a congregation. The Evagrian version, indeed, adds
that the Gentiles on this occasion also carried on idolatrous rites
in the Church and polluted the baptisteries ; but Evagrius is in
the habit of interpolating little details from his own knowledge
or opinion (e.g. 16, ' Ita exorsus,' &c., 26, 'qui vinctas hominum
linguas solvebat,' 58, 'qui efifosso pro Christo oculo sub Maxi-
miano,' &C-), and in this case appears to borrow from Encycl. 3.
Again, the writer of the Vita was not present (' the bystanders '
supra; 'Mo/ troubled him;' 'they asked him;' . . . and infr.
'those with him') when the Vision took place: but when, two
years later, it was interpreted by events, he was in the company of
those who had been with Antony at the time (infr. ' then ive all
understood '). This (on the assumption of Athanasian authorship)
excludes the year 339, when Athanasius fled to Italy, and compels
usto refer the Vision to the troubles of 356 (Apol. Fug. 6, 7.
Hist. Ar. 55, 56, Ep.ad Lucif.], after which Athanasius fled to the
desert and was. in the company of the monks. This conclusion
is in independent agreement with (i) the fact, decisive by itself,
that Antony is still alive in 345, when Nestorius became Prefect
of Egypt (I 86, note 3), i.e. six years after the troubles of 339 ;
(2) the evidence that Antony was still living about 353 a.d. (Epist.
Amman, de Pachom. et Theod. 20, 21, in Act. SS. Mai. torn. iii.
Appendix 70 C E, Tillemont vii. 123), and (3) the statement of
Jerome (Chron.) that Antony died in 356. Against it Weingarten
urges the prophecy of restored peace to the Church [infr.), as
pointing to a time after the overthrow of Arianism. This is of
little weight, for the prophecy expresses only what must have
been the hope and belief of all. The prologue, which Tillemont
(viii. 227) thinks must have been written in a time of peace at
Alexandria, is not sufficiently explicit on the point to weigh against
the phi in sense of the present passage.
•7 Cf. the Second Letter to monks (Letter 53).
their teaching is not that of the Apostles, but
that of demons and their father the devil ; yea,
rather, it is barren and senseless, and without
light understanding, like the senselessness of
these mules.'
83. Such are the words of Antony, and we
ought not to doubt whether such marvels were
wrought by the hand of a man. For it is the •
promise of the Saviour, when He saith, ' If
ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye
shall say to this mountain, remove hence and
it shall remove ; and nothing shall be impossible
unto you^^.' And again, 'Verily, verily, I say
unto you, if ye shall ask the father in My name
He will give it you. Ask and ye shall receive ^9.'
And He himself it is who saith to His dis-
ciples and to all who believe on Him, ' Heal
the sick, cast out demons ; freely ye have
received, freely give ^°.'
84. Antony, at any rate, healed not by com-
manding, but by prayer and speaking the name
of Christ. So that it was clear to all that it 3
was not he himself who worked, but the Lord
who showed mercy by his means and healed -
the sufferers. But Antony's part was only
prayer and discipline, for the sake of which he
stayed in the mountain, rejoicing in the con-
templation of divine things, but grieving when
troubled by much people, and dragged to
the outer mountain. For all judges used
to ask him to come down, because it was im-
possible for them to enter on account of their
following of litigants. But nevertheless they
asked him to come that they might but see
him. When therefore he avoided it and refused
to go to them, they remained firm, and sent to
him all the more the prisoners under charge of
soldiers, that on account of these he might
come down. Being forced by necessity, and
seeing them lamenting, he came into the outer
mountain, and again his labour was not un-
profitable. For his coming was advantageous
and serviceable to many ; and he was of profit
to the judges, counselling them to prefer
justice to all. things ; to fear God, and to know,
' that with what judgment they judged, they
should be judged ^' But he loved more than all
things his sojourn in the mountain. -^
85. At another time, suffering the same com-
pulsion at the hands of them who had need,
and after many entreaties from the commander
of the soldiers, he came down, and when he was
come he spoke tp them shortly of the things
which make for salvation, and concerning those
who wanted him, and was hastening away. But
when the duke, as he is called, entreated him to
stay, he replied that he could not linger among
them, and persuaded him by a pretty simile, say-
»8 Matt. xvii. so.
'9 John xvi. 23.
I Matt. vii. 2.
ao Matt. X. 8.
LIFE OF ANTONY.
219
ing, * Fishes, if they remain long on dry land,
die. And so monks lose their strength if they
loiter among you and spend their time with you.
Wherefore as fish must hurry to the sea, so
must we hasten to the mountain. Lest haply
if we delay we forget the things within us.'
And the general haying heard this and many
other things from him, was amazed and said,
' Of a truth this man is the servant of God.
For, unless he were beloved of God, whence
could an ignorant man have such great under-
standing?'
86. And a certain general, Balacius by
name, persecuted us Christians bitterly on
account of his regard for the Arians — that
name of ill-omen. And as his ruthlessness was
so great that he beat virgins, and stripped
and scourged monks, Antony at this time wrote
a letter as follows, and sent it to him. ' I see
wrath coming upon thee, wherefore cease to
persecute the Christians, lest haply wrath catch
hold of thee, for even now it is on the point of
coming upon thee^' But Balacius laughed and
threw the letter on the ground, and spit on it,
and insulted the bearers, bidding them tell this
to Antony : ' Since thou takest thought for the
monks, soon I will come after thee also.' And
five days had not passed before wrath came
upon him. For Balacius and Nestorius, the
Prefect of Egypt 3, went forth to the first halting-
place from Alexandria, which is called Chaereu,
and both were on horseback, and the horses
belonged to Balacius, and were the quietest of
all his stable. But they had not gone far
towards the place when the horses began to frisk
with one another as they are wont to do ; and
suddenly the quieter, on which Nestorius sat-*,
with a bite dismounted Balacius, and attacked
him, and tore his thigh so badly with its teeth
that he was borne straight back to the city, and
in three days died. And all wondered be-
cause what Antony had foretold had been so
speedily fulfilled.
87. Thus, therefore, he warned the cruel. But
the rest who came to him he so instructed
that they straightway forgot their lawsuits, and
felicitated those who were in retirement from the
world. And he championed those who were
wronged in such a way that you would imagine
that he, and not the others, was the sufferer.
Further, he was able to be of such use to all,
that many soldiers and men who had great
possessions laid aside the burdens of life, and
became monks for the rest of their days. And
it was as if a physician had been given by God
a In Hist. Ar. 14 the letter is sent not to Balacius but to
Gregory, who died on J ine 26, 345 (Gwatkin, p. 105).
3 Nestorius was pn'fect '345—352' (Index to Fest. Letters,
where the year '34s' is Trom August 344 to August 345).
4 In the Hist. Ar. ii. is simply stated that Balacius was bitten
by his own horse. Th{ present passage looks like a more careful
restatement.
to Egypt. For who in grief met Antony and
did not return rejoicing? Who came mourning
for his dead and did not forthwith put off his
sorrow ? Who came in anger and was not con-
verted to friendship? What poor and low-
spirited man met him who, hearing him and
looking upon him, did not des])ise wealth
and console himself in his poverty? What
monk, having being neglectful, came to him
and became not all the stronger ? What young
man having come to the mountain and seen
Antony, did not forthwith deny himself pleasure
and love temperance? Who when tempted by a
demon, came to him and did not find rest ?
And who came troubled with doubts and did
not get quietness of mind ?
88. For this was the wonderful thing in An-
tony's discipline, that, as I said before, having
the gift of discerning spirits, he recognised their
movements, and was not ignorant whither any
one of them turned his energy and made his
attack. And not only was he not deceived by
them himself, but cheering those who were
troubled with doubts, he taught them how to
defeat their plans, telling them of the weak-
ness and craft of those who possessed them.
Thus each one, as though prepared by him
for battle, came down from the mountain,
braving the designs of the devil and his
demons. How many maidens who had
suitors, having but seen Antony from afar,
remained maidens for Christ's sake. And
people came also from foreign parts to him,
and like all others, having got some benefit,
returned, as though set forward by a father.
And certainly when he died, all as having been
bereft of a father, consoled themselves solely
by their remembrances of him, preserving at
the same time his counsel and advice.
89. It is worth while that I should relate,
and that you, as you wish it, should hear what
his death was like. For this end of his is
worthy of imitation. According to his custom
he visited the monks in the outer mountain,
and having learned from Providence that
his own end was at hand, he said to the
brethren, ' This is my last visit to you which I
shall make. And I shall be surprised if we
see each other again in this life. At length
the time of my departure is at hand, for I am
near a hundred and five years old.' And when
they heard it they wept, and embraced, and
kissed the old man. But he, as though sailing
from a foreign city to his own, spoke joyously,
and exhorted them ' Not to grow idle in their
labours, nor to become faint in their training,
but to live as though dying daily. And as he
had said before, zealously to guard the soul
from foul thoughts, eagerly to imitate the Saints,
and to have nought to do with the Meletian
220
VITA S. ANTONI.
schismatics, for you know their wicked and
profane character. Nor have any fellowship
with the Arians, for their impiety is clear to all.
Nor be disturbed if you see the judges protect
them, for it shall cease, and their pomp is
mortal and of short duration. Wherefore keep
yourselves all the more untainted by them, and
observe the traditions of the fathers, and chiefly
the holy faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, which
you have learned from the Scripture, and of
which you have often been put in mind by me.'
90. But when the brethren were urging him
to abide with them and there to die, he suffered
it not for many other reasons, as he showed by
keeping silence, and especially for this : — The
Egyptians are wont to honour with funeral
rites, and to wrap in linen cloths at death the
bodi'es of good men, and. especially of the holy
martyrs; and not to bury them underground,
but to place them on couches, and to keep
them in their houses, thinking in this to
honour the departed. And Antony often urged
the bishops to give commandment to the- people
on this matter. In like manner he taught the
laity and reproved the women, saying, ' that this
thing was neither lawful nor holy at all. For
the bodies of the patriarchs and prophets are
until now preserved in tombs, and the very
body of the Lord was laid in a tomb, and a
stone was laid upon it, and hid it until He rose
on the third day**.' And thus saying, he showed
that he who did not bury the bodies of the dead
after death transgressed the law, even though
they were sacred. For what is greater or
more sacred than the body of the Lord ? Many
therefore having heard, henceforth buried the
dead underground, and gave thanks to the Lord
that they had been taught rightly.
91. But he, knowing the custom, and fearing
that his body would be treated this way,
hastened, and having bidden farewell to the
monks in the outer mountain entered the
inner mountain, where he was accustomed to
abide. And after a few months he fell sick.
Having summoned those who were there —
they were two in number who had remained in
the mountain fifteen years, practising the
discipline and attending on Antony on account
of his age— he said to them, ' I, as it is written s,
go the way of the fathers, for I perceive that I
am called by the Lord. And do you be watch-
ful and destroy not your long discipline, but as
though now making a beginning, zealously
preserve your determination. For ye know
the treachery of the demons, how fierce they
are, but how little power they have. Where-
fore fear them not, but rather ever breathe
Christ, and trust Him. Live as though dying
4» Cf. John xix. 41 ; Matt, xxvii. 60. S Josh, xxiii. 14,
daily. Give heed to yourselves, and remember
the admonition you have heard from me. Have
no fellowship with the schismatics, nor any
dealings at all with the heretical Ariaos. For
you know how I shunned them on account rf
their hostility to Christ, and the strange
doctrines of their heresy. Therefore be the
more earnest always to be followers first of God
and then of the Saints; that after death they also
may receive you as well-known friends into the
eternal habitations. Ponder over these things
and think of them, and if you have any care for
me and are mindful of me as of a father, suffer
no one to take my body into Egypt, lest haply
they place me in the houses ^, for to avoid this
I entered into the mountain and came here.
Moreover you know how I always put to rebuke
those who had this custom, and exhorted them
to cease from it. Bury my body, therefore, and
hide it underground yourselves, and let my
words be observed by you that no one may
know the place ^* but you alone. For at the
resurrection of the dead I shall receive it
incorruptible from the Saviour, And divide
my garments. To Athanasius the bishop give
one sheepskin and the garment whereon I am
laid, which he himself gave me new, but which
with me has grown old. To Serapion the
bishop give the other sheepskin, and keep the'
hair garment yourselves 7. For the rest fare ye
well, my children, for Antony is departing, and
is with you no more.'
92. Having said this, when they had kissed
him, he lifted up his. feet, and as though he saw
friends coming to him and was glad because O
them — for as he lay his countenance appeared
joyful — he died and was gathered to the fathers.
And they afterward, according to his com-
mandment, wrapped him up and buried him,
hiding his body underground. And no one
knows to this day where it was buried, save
those two only. But each of those who re-
ceived the sheepskin of the blessed Antony
and the garment worn by him guards it as
a precious treasure. For even to look on
them is as it were to behold Antony ; and he
who is clothed in them seems with joy to bear
his admonitions.
93. This is the end of Antony's life in the body
6 Cf. St. Aug. Sertn. 361. 12, D.C.A. p. 251.
6" The body of Antony was discovered 'by a revelation' in 561,
and translated to Alexandria. When the Saracens conquered
Kgypt it was transferred to Constantinople, and lastly in the tenth
century was carried to Vienne by a French Seigneur. The first
and last links of this histor>' are naturally precarious. The trans-
lation to Alexandria is vouched for by Victor of Tunis (Chron.)
who was in the neighbourhood at the time.
7 Jerome, in his life of Paul of Thebes, relates that Antony
received from Paul, and ever afterwards wore on festivals, his
tunic of palm-leaves. If this ' legacy more glorious than the
purple of a king' (Vit. Paul. c. 13 1 had any existence, it would
certainly not have been forgotten by Antony in disposing of his
worldly goods. The silence of the Life of Antony throws discredit
on Jerome's whole account of Paul.
LIFE OF ANTONY.
221
and the above was the beginning of the disci-
jDline. Even if this account is small compared
with his merit, still from this reflect how great
Antony, the man of God, was. Who from his
youth to so great an age preserved a uniform
zeal for the discipline, and neither through old
age was subdued by the desire of costly food,
nor through the infirmity of his body changed
the fashion of his clothing, nor washed even
his feet with water, and yet remained entirely
free from harm. For his eyes were undimmed
and quite sound and he saw clearly ; of his
teeth he had not lost one, but they had
become worn to the gums through the great
age of the old man. He remained strong both
in hands and feet ; and while all men were
using various foods, and washings and divers
garments, he appeared more cheerful and of
greater strength. And the fact that his fame
has been blazoned everywhere ; that all regard
him with wonder, and that those who have never
seen him long for him, is clear proof of his
virtue and God's love of his soul. For not
from writings, nor from worldly wisdom, nor
through any art, was Antony renowned, but
solely from his piety towards God. That this
was the gift of God no one will deny. For
from whence into Spain and into Gaul, how
into Rome and Africa, was the man heard of
who abode hidden in a mountain, unless it
was God who maketh His own known every-
where, who also promised this to Antony at
the beginning ? For even if they work secretly,
even if they wish to remain in obscurity, yet
the Lord shows them as lamps to lighten all,
that those who hear may thus know that the
precepts of God are able to make men prosper
and thus be zealous in the path of virtue.
94. Read these words, therefore, to the rest
of the brethren that they may learn what the
life of monks ought to be; and may believe
that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ glori-
fies those who glorify Him : and leads those
who serve Him unto the end, not only to the
kingdom of heaven, but here also — even though
they hide themselves and are desirous of with-
drawing from the world — makes them illustrious
and well known everywhere on account of their
virtue and the help they render others. And
if need be, read this among the heathen, that
even in this way they may learn that our Lord
Jesus Christ is not only God and the Son of
God, but also that the Christians who truly
serve Him and religiously believe on Him,
prove, not only that the demons, whom the
Greeks themselves think to be gods, are no
gods, but also tread them under foot and put
them to flight, as deceivers and corrupters of
mankind, through Jesus Christ our Lord, to
whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
AD EPISCOPOS ^GYPTI
ET LIBY^
EPISTOLA ENCYCLICA.
Written a.d. 356.
This letter was addressed by St. Athanasius to the bishops of his Province after his
expulsion by Syrianus (Feb. 8, 356), and when the nomination of George the contractor
to the Alexandrian See was already known (§ 7). But no details of the persecution of the
orthodox in Egypt had reached Athanasius when he wrote, in fact he mentions it as only
beginning (§ 5). This points to about the Easter of 356; see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 8 (i). The
tract thus opens the series of anti-Arian works composed during the 'third exile.' It has in-
deed been inferred (by Baronius and others) from § 22 that the letter was written thirty-six
years after the Nicene Synod, i.e. in 361. But it was certainly written before the arrival
of George, and in the passage referred to it is the first condemnation of Arius by Alexander,
and not the Council of Nicaea, that is placed thirty-six years ago. The primary purpose of
the letter is to warn the bishops against a formulary which was on the point of being
circulated for their acceptance on pain of banishment (§ 5). The creed in question cannot
now be identified,— but it was very possibly the Sirmian Creed of 351 {de Synod. 27), not
formally Arian, but evading the Nicene test (§ 10). He begins, accordingly, after a general
warning (i- — 4) against being imposed upon by mere words, and a statement (5) of the tactics
of his opponents, by urging the bishops to hold to the faith of Nicaea, in contrast to the
shifting professions of its opponents (6 — 8), and to be satisfied with nothing short of an explicit
repudiation of Arianism (9 — 11), In the Second Part of the Letter he turns to doctrine.
He states (12) the original Arian position, and confronts it (13) with passages from Scripture.
He challenges the Arians (14) to state any clear belief as to the nature of the Word, which
shall reconcile their premises with the language of Holy Writ (15, 16). He explains
Prov. viii. 22 of the Incarnation, and taxes the Arians with denying this truth, like the
heathen ( 1 7). He next taxes them with dissimulation, especially Arius in his profession to
Constantine (18); he describes the death of Arius, and presses the charge of complicity
with a man already judged by God (19). He urges the bishops (20, 21) to steadfastness and
confessorship, reprobates the coalition of Meletians (22) and Arians, and finally expresses the
conviction (23) that the Emperor Constantius will put an end to these outrages when informed
of the true facts of the case.
The last section is an anticipation of the Apol. ad Constantium, which Athanasius was
probably preparing at the same time. Not till two years later does he cast aside all
hope of the Emperor and launch out in the bitter invective of the 'Arian History' (see
Apol. pro Fuga 26, note 7).
The place where this Encyclical was written is quite uncertain, but it was most probably
in the Libyan desert, or in Cyrenaica (Prolegg. ubi supr. note 10). His language {infr. § 5,
note 7) would naturally be such as not to give, through so public a document, a clue to his
pursuers.
It may be added that in many MSS., and in the editions previous to 1698, this tract was
counted as the first of the ' five ' (or in some cases ' six ') Orationes contra Arianos. For
a discussion of this error, see Montfaucon's Monita to this tract and to the four Orationes.
TO THE BISHOPS OF EGYPT
CHAPTER I.
I. Christ warned His followers against
false prophets.
All things whatsoever our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, as Luke wrote, ' both hath done
and taught %' He effected after having ap-
peared for our salvation ; for He came, as
John saith, 'not to condemn the world,
but that the world through Him might be
saved =.' And among the rest we have es-
pecially to admire this instance of His good-
ness, that He was not silent concerning those
who should fight against us, but plainly told
us beforehand, that, when those things should
come to pass, we might straightway be found
with minds established by His teaching. For
He said, * There shall arise false prophets and
false Christs, and shall shew great signs and
wonders ; insomuch that, if it were possible,
the very elect- shall be deceived. Behold, I
have told you befores.' Manifold indeed and
beyond human conception are the instructions
and gifts of grace which He has laid up in us ;
as the pattern of heavenly conversation, power
against demons, the adoption of sons, and that
exceeding great and singular grace, the know-
ledge of the Father and of the Word Himself,
and the gift of the Holy Ghost. But the
mind of man is prone to evil exceedingly ;
moreover, our adversary the devil, envying
us the possession of such great blessings,
goeth about seeking to snatch away the seed
of the word which is sown within us. Where-
fore as if by His prophetic warnings He
would seal up His instructions in our hearts
as His own peculiar treasure, the Lord said,
* Take heed that no man deceive you : for
many shall come in My name, saying, I
am he ; and the time draweth near ; and
they shall deceive many : go ye not therefore
after them*,' This is a great gift which the
Word has bestowed upon us, that we should
4cU Li. ■ John iii. 17. 3 Matt. xxiv. 24, aj.
4 Luke xxi. 8.
not be deceived by appearances, but that,
howsoever these things are concealed, we
should all the more distinguish them by the
grace of the Spirit. For whereas the in-
ventor of wickedness and great spirit of evil,
the devil, is utterly hateful, and as soon as
he shews himself is rejected 5 of all men,— as
a serpent, as a dragon, as a lion seeking
whom he may seize upon and devour,— there-
fore he conceals and covers what he really
is, and craftily personates that Name which all
men desire, so that deceiving by a false appear-
ance, he may thenceforth fix fast in his own
chains those whom he has led astray. And
as if one that desired to kidnap the children
of others during the absence of their parents,
should personate their appearance, and so
putting a cheat on the affections of the off-
spring, should carry them far away and destroy
them ; in like manner this evil and wily spirit
the devil, having no confidence in himself,
and knowing the love which men bear to the
truth, personates its appearance, and so spreads
his own poison among those that follow after
him.
2. Satan pretending to be holy^ is detected
by the Christian.
Thus he deceived Eve, not speaking his
own, but artfully adopting the words of God,
and perverting their meaning. Thus he sug-
gested evil to the wife of Job, persuading her
to feign affection for her husband, while he
taught her to blaspheme God. Thus does the
crafty spirit mock men by false displays, de-
luding and drav/ing each into his own pit of
wickedness. When of old he deceived the
first man Adam, thinking that through him
he should have all men subject unto him, he
exulted with great boldness and said, ' My
hand hath found as a nest the riches of the
people ; and as one gathereth eggs that are
left, have I gathered all the earth ; and there
is none that shall escape me or speak against
S SaAAerai, vid. p. 170, note 6.
224
AD EPISCOPOS iEGYPTI.
me^' But when the Lord came upon earth,
and the enemy made trial of His human
Economy, being unable to deceive the flesh
which He had taken upon Him, from that
time forth he, who promised himself the occu-
pation of the whole world, is for His sake
mocked even by children : that proud one
is mocked as a sparrow 7. For now the infant
child lays his hand upon the hole of the asp,
and laughs at him that deceived Eve^ ; and
all that rightly believe in the Lord tread under
foot him that said, ' I will ascend above
the heights of the clouds : I will be like the
Most High 9.' Thus he suffers and is dis-
honoured ; and although he still ventures with
shameless confidence to disguise himself, yet
now, wretched spirit, he is detected the rather
by them that bear the Sign on their fore-
heads^ ; yea, more, he is rejected of them, and
is humbled, and put to shame. For even if,
now that he is a creeping serpent, he shall
transform himself into an angel of light, yet
his deception will not profit him ; for we have
been taught that ' though an angel from
heaven preach unto us any other gospel than
that we have received, he is anathema ^.'
3. And although, again, he conceal his
natural falsehood, and pretend to speak truth
with his lips ; yet are we ' not ignorant of his
devices 3,' but are able to answer him in the
words spoken by the Spirit against him; 'But
unto the ungodly, said God, why dost thou
preach My laws ? ' and, ' Praise is not seemly
in the mouth of a sinnerl' For even though
he speak the truth, the deceiver is not worthy
of credit. And whereas Scripture shewed this,
when relating his wicked artifices against Eve
in Paradise, so the Lord also reproved him, —
first in the mount, when He laid open ' the
folds of his breast-plate s,' and shewed who the
crafty spirit was, and proved that it was not
one of the saints^, but Satan that was tempting
Him. For He said, 'Get thee behind Me
Satan ; for it is written, Thou shalt worship
the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou
serve?.' And again, when He put a curb in
the mouths of the demons that cried after Him
from the tombs. For although what they said
was true, and they lied not then, saying, 'Thou
art the Son of God,' and 'the Holy One of
God^;' yet He would not that the truth
should proceed from an unclean mouth, and
especially from such as them, lest under pre-
tence thereof they should mingle with it their
own malicious devices, and sow these also while
6 Is. X. 14. LXX.. cf. p. 202, note 8. 7 Vid. Job xli. 5 ;
xl. 24 LXX. 8 Isa. xi. 8 ; 2 Cor. xi. 3. 9 Is. xiv. 14.
» Ezek. IX. 4. LXX. 2 Gal. i. 8, 9. 32 Cor. ii. 11. 4 Ps. 1.
16 : Ecclus. XV. 9. 5 Job xli. 13, v. 4. LXX. and cf. Orat. i. i,
KaA l^tt.Ant. supr. p. 197, note 15. 6 Or sacred writers.dviwi/.
7 Matt. IV. 10. 8 Matt. viii. 29 ; Mark i. 24.
men slept. Therefore He suffered them not
to speak such words, neither would He have
us to suffer such, but hath charged us by
His own mouth, saying, ' Beware of false
prophets, which come to you in sheeps' cloth-
ing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves';'
and by the mouth of His Holy Apostles,
' Believe not every spirit ^°.' Such is the
method of our adversary's operations ; and of
the like nature are all these inventions of
heresies, each of which has for the father of
its own device the devil, who changed and
became a murderer and a liar from the begin-
ning. But being ashamed to profess his
hateful name, they usurp the glorious Name
of our Saviour ' which- is above every name','
and deck themselves out in the language of
Scripture, speaking indeed the words, but
stealing away the true meaning thereof; and
so disguising by some artifice their false in-
ventions, they also become the murderers
of those whom they have led astray.
4. It profits not to receive pat- 1 of Scripture^
and reject part.
For whence do Marcion and Manichaeus
receive the Gospel while they reject the
Law? For the New Testament arose out of
the Old, and bears witness to the Old ; if
then they reject this, how can they receive
what proceeds from it ? Thus Paul was an
Apostle of the Gospel, 'which God promised
afore by His prophets in the holy Scriptures3:'
and our Lord Himself said, 'ye search the
Scriptures, for they are they which testify of
Me+.' How then shall they confess the Lord
unless they first search the Scriptures which
are written concerning Him ? And the dis-
ciples say that they have found Him, ' of
whom Moses and the Prophets did writes.'
And what is the Law to the Sadducees
if they receive not the Prophets^? For God
who gave the Law, Himself promised in the
Law that He would raise up Prophets also,
so that the same is Lord both of the Law and
of the Prophets, and he that denies the one
must of necessity deny the other also. And
again, what is the Old Testament to the Jews,
unless they acknowledge the Lord whose com-
ing was expected according to it ? For had
they believed the writings of Moses, they
would have believed the words of the Lord ;
for He said, 'He wrote of Me?.' Moreover,
what are the Scriptures to him^ of Samosata,
who denies the Word of God and His incarnate
9 Matt. vii. 15. «o I John iv. i. » Phil. ii. 9.
3 Rom. i. 3. 4 John v. 39. S John i. 45,
6 Vid. Prideaux, Conn. ii. 5. (vol. 3, p. 474. ed. 1725),
7 John V. 46. 8 See Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (a) a.
TO THE BISHOPS OF EGYPT.
225
Presence 9, which is signified and declared both
in the Old and New Testament ? And of what
use are the Scriptures to the Arians also, and
why do they bring them forward, men who say
that the Word of God is a creature, and like
the Gentiles 'serve the creature more than' God
' the Creator^ ?' 1 hus each of these heresies, in
respect of the peculiar impiety of its invention,
has nothing in common with the Scri])tures.
And their advocates are aware of this, that the
Scriptures are very much, or rather altogether,
opposed to the doctrines of every one of them ;
but for the sake of deceiving the more simple
sort (such as are those of whom it is written in
the Proverbs, ' The simple believeth every
word^),' they pretend like their 'father the
devils' to study and to quote the language of
Scripture, in order that they may appear by
their words to have a right belief, and so may
persuade their wretched followers to believe
what is contrary to the Scriptures, Assuredly
in every one of these heresies the devil has thus
disguised himself, and has suggested to them
words full of craftiness. The Lord spake con-
cerning them, that 'there shall arise false
Christs and false prophets, so that they shall
deceive many!' Accordingly the devil has
come, speaking by each and saying, * I am
Christ, and the truth is with me;' and he has
made them, one and all, to be liars like himself
And strange it is, that while all heresies are at
variance with one another concerning the mis-
chievous inventions which each has framed,
they are united together only by the common
purpose of lyings. For they have one and the
same father that has sown in them all the seeds
of falsehood. Wherefore the faithful Christian
and true disciple of the Gospel, having grace to
discern spiritual things, and having built the
house of his faith upon a rock, stands con-
tinually firm and secure from their deceits.
But the simple person, as I said before, that is
not thoroughly grounded in knowledge, such
an one, considering only the words that are
spoken and not perceiving their meaning, is
immediately drawn away by their wiles. Where-
fore it is good and needful for us to pray that
we may receive the gift of discerning spirits,
so that every one may know, according to the
precept of John, whom he ought to reject, and
whom to receive as friends and of the same
faith. Now one might write at great length
concerning these things, if one desired to go
into details respecting them; for the impiety
and perverseness of heresies will appear to be
manifold and various, and the craft of the
deceivers to be very terrible. But since holy
9 See Orai i. 49. ' Rom. i. 25. ^ Prov. xiv. 15.
3 John viii. 44. 4 Matt. xxiv. 24. 5 vid. Orat. ii. § 18.
VOL. IV.
Scripture is of all things most sufficient^ for us,
therefore recommending to those who desire to
know more of these matters, to read the Divine
word, I now hasten to set before you that
which most claims attention, and for the sake
of which principally I have written these
things.
5. Attempt of Arians to substitute a Creed
for the Nicene.
I heard during my sojourn in these parts'
(and they were true and orthodox brethren
that informed me), that certain professors of
Arian opinions had met together, and drawn
a confession of faith to their own liking, and
that they intend to send word to you, that you
must either subscribe to what pleases them, or
rather to what the devil has inspired them with,
or in case of refusal must suffer banishment.
They are indeed already beginning to molest
the Bishops of these parts; and thereby are
plainly manifesting their disposition. For in-
asmuch as they frame this document only for
the purpose of inflicting banishment or other
punishments, what does such conduct prove
them to be, but enemies of the Christians,
and friends of the devil and his angels? and
especially since they spread abroad what they
like contrary to the mind of that gracious
Prince, our most religious Emperor Constan-
tius ^ And this they do with great craftiness,
and, as appears to me, chiefly with two ends
in view ; first, that by obtaining your subscrip-
tions, they may seem to remove the evil repute
that rests upon the name of Arius, and may
escape notice themselves as if not professing
his opinions ; and again, that by putting forth
these statements they may cast a shade over
the Council of NicgeaS, and the confession of
faith which was then put forth against the Arian
heresy. But this proceeding does but prove
the more plainly their own maliciousness and
heterodoxy. For had they believed aright,
they would have been satisfied with the con-
fession put forth at Nicasa by the whole Ecu-
menic Council ; and had they considered them-
selves calumniated and falsely called Arians,
they ought not to have been so eager to
innovate upon what was written against Arius,
lest what was directed against him might seem
to be aimed at them also. This, however, is
not the course they pursue, but they conduct
the struggle in their own behalf, just as if they
were Arius. Observe how entirely they dis-
regard the truth, and how everything they say
and do is for the sake of the Arian heresy. For
in that they dare to question those sound
6 Cf. p. 4, note 2. 7 [Probably Cyrenaica, see above, Introd.
sub.fin.^ ^ Cf.i 23, and Ajiol. Const. 32. 9 Zi.de Syit. ,.
226
AD EPISCOPOS iEGYPTL
definitions of the faith, and take upon them-
selves to produce others contrary to them, what
else do they but accuse the Fathers, and stand
up in defence of that heresy which they opposed
and protested against ? And what they now
write proceeds not from any regard for the
truth, as I said before, but rather they do it as
in mockery and by an artifice, for the purpose
of deceiving men ; that by sending about their
letters they may engage the ears of the people
to listen to these notions, and so put off the
time when they will be brought to trial ; and
that by concealing their impiety from observa-
tion, they may have room to extend their
heresy, which, 'like a gangrene ^°,' eats its way
everywhere.
6. Accordingly they disturb and disorder
everything, and yet not even thus are they satis-
fied with their own proceedings. For every year,
as if they were going to draw up a contract, they
meet together and pretend to write about the
faith, whereby they expose themselves the more
to ridicule and disgrace, because their exposi-
tions are rejected, not by others, but by them-
selves. For had they had any confidence in
their previous statements, they would not have
desired to draw up others \ nor again, leaving
these last, would they now have set down the
one in question, which no doubt true to their
custom they will again alter, after a very short
interval, and as soon as they shall find a
pretence for their customary plotting against
certain persons. For when they have a design
against any, then it is that they make a great
show of writing about the faith ; that, as Pilate
washed his hands, so they by writing may
destroy those who rightly believe in Christ,
hoping that, as making definitions about the
faith, they may appear, as I have repeatedly
said, to be free from the charge of false
doctrine. But they will not be able to hide
themselves, nor to escape ; for they continually
become their own accusers even while they
defend themselves. Justly so, since instead of
answering those who bring proof against them,
they do but persuade themselves to believe
whatever they wish. And when is an acquittal
obtained, upon the criminal becoming his own
judge ? Hence it is that they are always
writing, and always altering their own previous
statements, and thus they shew an uncertain
faith ',' or rather a manifest unbelief and per-
verseness. And this, it appears to me, must
needs be the case with them \ for since, having
fallen away from the truth, and desiring to
overthrow that sound confession of faith which
was drawn up at Nicaea, they have, in the
language of Scripture, ' loved to wander, and
2 Tim. ii. 17.
I Cf. de Syn. §§ 3, 6.
have not refrained their feet ^ ;* therefore, like
Jerusalem of old, they labour and toil in their
changes, sometimes writing one thing, and
sometimes another, but only for the sake of
gaining time, and that they may continue
enemies of Christ, and deceivers of mankind.
7. The party of Acacius really Arians.
Who, then, that has any real regard for truth,
will be willing to suffer these men any longer?
who will not justly reject their writing? who
will not denounce their audacity, that being
but few 3 in number, they would have their
decisions to prevail over everything, and as
desiring the supremacy of their own meetings,
held in corners and suspicious in their circum-
stances, would forcibly cancel the decrees of an
uncorrupt, pure, and Ecumenic Council ? Men
who have been promoted by Eusebius and his
fellows for advocating this Antichristian heresy,
venture to define articles of faith, and while
they ought to be brought to judgment as crimi-
nals, like Caiaphas, they take upon themselves
to judge. They compose a Thalia, and would
have it received as a standard of faith, while
they are not yet themselves determined what
they beheve. Who does not know that Secun-
dus 4 of Pentapolis, who was several times de-
graded long ago, was received by them for the
sake of the Arian madness ; and that George s,
now of Laodicea, and Leontius the Eunuch, and
before him Stephanus, and Theodorus of Hera-
clea ^, were promoted by them ? Ursacius and
Valens also, who from the first were instructed
by Arius as young men 7, though they had been
formerly degraded from the Priesthood, after-
wards got the title of Bishops on account of
their impiety ; as did also Acacius, Patro-
philus^, and Narcissus, who have been most
forward in all manner of impiety. These were
degraded in the great Synod of Sardica ; Eusta-
thius also now of Sebastea, Demophilus and
Germinius 9, Eudoxius, and Basil, who are sup-
porters of that impiety, were advanced in the
same manner. Of Cecropius ^°, and him they
called Auxentius, and of Epictetus " the im-
postor, it were superfluous for me to speak,
since it is manifest to all men, in what manner,
on what pretexts, and by what enemies of ours
these were promoted, that they might bring
their false charges against the orthodox
Bishops who were the objects of their designs.
For although they resided at the distance of
eighty posts, and were unknown to the people,
yet on the ground of their impiety they pur-
chased for themselves the title of Bishop. For
2 Jer. xiv. lo. 3 Cf. de Syn. 5, note. 4 Cf. de Syn. 12;
Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3(1), &c. 5 p. 104, note s- ^ Supr. p. iig.
7 Supr. p. 107, note 9. 8 Omitted supr. p. 123. 9 De Syn. % 9.
10 Of Nicomedia, see D. C. B. s.v. " Vid. Hist. Ar. i 74 fin.
TO THE BISHOPS OF EGYPT.
227
the same reason also they have now ' hired
one George of Cappadocia, whom they wish to
impose upon you. But no respect is due to
him any more than to the rest ; for there is
a report in these parts that he is not even
a Christian, but is devoted to the worship of
idols ; and he has a hangman's temper ^. And
this person, such as he is described to be, they
have taken into their ranks, that they may be
able to injure, to plunder, and to slay ; for in
these things he is a great proficient, but is
ignorant of the very principles of the Christian
faith,
8. Words are bad, though Scriptural, which
proceed from bad men.
Such are the machinations of these men
against the truth : but their designs are mani-
fest to all the world, though they attempt in ten
thousand ways, like eels, to elude the grasp,
and to escape detection as enemies of Christ.
Wherefore I beseech you, let no one among
you be deceived, no one seduced by them ;
rather, considering that a sort of judaical
impiety is invading the Christian faith, be ye
all zealous for the Lord ; hold fast, every one,
the faith we have received from the Fathers,
which they who assembled at Nicaea recorded
in writing, and endure not those who endeavour
to innovate thereon. And however they may
write phrases out of the Scripture, endure not
their writings ; however they may speak the
language of the orthodox, yet attend not to
what they say; for they speak not with an
upright mind, but putting on such language
like sheeps' clothing, in their hearts they think
with Arius, after the manner of the devil, who
is the author of all heresies. For he too made
use of the words of Scripture, but was put to
silence by our Saviour. For if he had indeed
meant them as he used them, he would not
have fallen from heaven ; but now having
fallen through his pride, he artfully dissembles
in his speech, and oftentimes maliciously en-
deavours to lead men astray by the subtleties
and sophistries of the Gentiles. Had these
expositions of theirs proceeded from the
orthodox, from such as the great Confessor
Hosius, and Maximinus 3 of Gaul, or his succes-
sor 3*, or from such as Philogonius and Eusta-
thius 4, Bishops of the East s, or Julius and
Liberius of Rome, or Cyriacus of Moesia ^, or
Pistus and Aristseus of Greece, or Silvester and
Protogenes of Dacia, or Leontius and Eupsy-
chius of Cappadocia, or Csecilianus of Africa,
or Eustorgius of Italy, or Capito of Sicily, or
' Hist. Ar. 75, 2 Cf. de Syn. yj. 3 Supr. Apol. Ar. 50.
sa Paulinus of Treveri, cf. supr. p. 130, note 10.
4 At Nicaea, as most of the others. 5 i.e. of Antioch.
* [Unknown.]
Macarius of Jerusalem, or Alexander of Con-
stantinople, or Pasderos of Heraclea, or those
great Bishops Meletius, Basil, and Longianus,
and the rest from Armenia and Pontus, or
Lupus and Amphion from Cilicia, or James ^»
and the rest from Mesopotamia, or our own
blessed Alexander, with others of the same
opinions as these ; — there would then have
been nothing to suspect in their statements, for
the character of apostolical men is sincere and
incapable of fraud.
9. For such words do but serve as their cloak.
But when they proceed from those who are
hired to advocate the cause of heresy, and
since, according to the divine proverb, ' The
words of the wicked are to lie in wait,' and
'The mouth of the wicked poureth out evil
things,' and ' The counsels of the wicked are
deceit'' : ' it becomes us to watch and be sober,
brethren, as the Lord has said, lest any de-
ception arise from subtlety of speech and
craftiness ; lest any one come and pretend
to say, ' I preach Christ,' and after a Httle
while he be found to be Antichrist. These
indeed are Antichrists, whosoever come to
you in the cause of the Arian madness.
For what defect is there among you, that any
one need to come to you from without ? Or,
of what do the Churches of Egypt and Libya
and Alexandria stand so much in need, that
these men should make a purchase^ of the Epis
copate instead of wood and goods, and intrude
into Churches which do not belong to them ?
Who is not aware, who does not perceive
clearly, that they do all this in order to sup-
port their impiety ? Wherefore although they
should make themselves dumb, or although they
should bind on their garments larger borders
than the Pharisees, and pour themselves forth
in long speeches, and practise the tones of
their voice 9, they ought not to be believed;
for it is not the mode of speaking, but the
intentions of the heart and a godly conver-
sation that recommend the faithful Christian,
And thus the Sadducees and Herodians, al-
though they have the law in their mouths,
were put to rebuke by our Saviour, who said
unto them, ' Ye do err, not knowing the
Scriptures, nor the power of God^°:' and all
men witnessed the exposure of those who
pretended to quote the words of the Law,
as being in their minds heretics and enemies
of God". Others indeed they deceived by
these professions, but when our Lord became
man they were not able to deceive Him ; ' for
6» [Of Nisibis. See D.C.B. iii. p. 325 and foil.]
7 Prov. xii. 6 ; xv. 28; xii. 5 s Ap. ad Conit. § 28.
Hist. Arian. § 73, supr. 9 Vid. Basil. Ep. 223. 3.
'o Matt. xxii. 29. " Beoixaxot.
Q 2
228
AD EPISCOPOS ^GYPTI.
the Word was made Flesh,' who * knoweth the
thoughts of men that they are vain.' Thus He
exposed the carping of the Jews, saying, ' If
God were your Father, ye would love Me, for
I proceeded forth from the Father, and am
come- to you^' In like manner these men
seem now to act ; for they disguise their real
sentiments, and then make use of the language
of Scripture for their writings, which they hold
forth as a bait for the ignorant, that they may
inveigle them into their own wickedness.
lo. They ought first to condemn Arius, if
they are to be heard.
Consider, whether this be not so. If, when
there is no reason for their doing so, they
write confessions of faith, it is a superfluous,
and perhaps also a mischievous proceeding,
because, when there is no enquiry, they offer
occasion for controversy of words, and un-
settle the simple hearts of the brethren, dis-
seminating among them such notions as have
never entered into their minds. And if they
are attempting to write a defence of them-
selves in regard to the Arian heresy, they ought
first to have removed the seeds of those evils
which have sprung up, and to have proscribed
those who produced them, and then in the
room of former statements to set forth others
which are sound ; or else let them openly
vindicate the opinions of Arius, that they may
no longer covertly but openly shew themselves
enemies of Christ, and that all men may fly from
them as from the face of a serpent. But now
theykeep back those opinions, and for apretence
write on other matters ; just as if a surgeon,
when summoned to attend a person wounded
and suffering, should upon coming in to him
say not a word concerning his wounds, but
proceed to discourse about his sound limbs.
Such an one would be chargeable with utter
stupidity, for saying nothing on the matter
for which he came, but discoursing on those
other points in which he was not needed.
Yet just in the same manner these men omit
those matters which concern .their heresy, and
take upon themselves to write on other sub-
jects ; whereas if they had any regard for the
Faith, or any love for Christ, they ought first to
have removed out of the way those blasphemous
expressions uttered against Him, and then in
the room of them to speak and to write the
sound words. But this they neither do them-
selves, nor permit those that desire to do
so, whether it be from ignorance, or through
craft and artifice.
> John i. 14 ; Ps. xdv. 11 ; John viii. 43, ^ku, vid. Hipp, contr.
Noet. 16. and dt Syn. 16.
II. No profit to do right in one way, if we
do wrong in another.
If they do this from ignorance they must
be charged with rashness, because they affirm
positively concerning things that they know
not ; but if they dissemble knowingly, their
condemnation is the greater, because while
they overlook nothing in consulting for their
own interests, in writing about faith in our
Lord they make a mockery, and do anything
rather than speak the truth ; they keep back
those particulars respecting which their heresy
is accused, and merely bring forward the lan-
guage of the Scriptures. Now this is a manifest
theft of the truth, and a practice full of all
iniquity; and so I am sure your piety will
readily perceive it to be from the following
illustrations. No person being accused of
adultery defends himself as innocent of theft ;
nor would any one in prosecuting a charge
of murder suffer the accused parties to defend
themselves by saying, 'We have not com-
mitted perjury, but have preserved the deposit
which was entrusted to us.' This would be
mere child's play, instead of a refutation of
the charge and a demonstration of the truth.
For what has murder to do with a deposit,
or adultery with theft ? The vices are indeed
related to each other as proceeding from the
same heart ; yet in respect to the refutation of an
alleged offence, they have no connection with
each other. Accordingly as it is written in the
Book of Joshua 2 the son of Nun, when Achan
was charged with theft, he did not excuse him-
self with the plea of his zeal in the wars ; but
being convicted of the offence was stoned
by all the people. And when Saul was charged
with negligence and a breach of the law, he
did not benefit his cause by alleging his con-
duct on other matters 3. For a defence on
one count will not operate to obtain an
acquittal on another count ; but if all things
should be done according to law and justice,
a man must defend himself in those particulars
wherein he is accused, and must either dis-
prove the past, or else confess it with the
promise that he will desist, and do so no more.
But if he is guilty of the crime, and will not con-
fess, but in order to conceal the truth speaks
on other points instead of the one in question,
he shews plainly that he has acted amiss,
nay, and is conscious of his delinquency.
But what need of many words, seeing that
these persons are themselves accusers of the
Arian heresy? For since they have not the
boldness to speak out, but conceal their blas-
phemous expressions, it is plain that they know
• Josh. vii. 20, &c.
3 I Sam. XV.
TO THE BISHOPS OF EGYPT.
229
that this heresy is separate and alien from the
truth. But since they themselves conceal it
and are afraid to speak, it is necessary for me
to strip off the veil from their impiety, and to
expose the heresy to public view, knowing as I
do the statements which Arius and his fellows
formerly made, and how they were cast out
of the Church, and degraded from the Clergy.
But here first I ask for pardon* of the foul
words which I am about to produce, since I
use them, not because I thus think, but in
order to convict the heretics.
CHAPTER II.
12. Arian statements.
Now the Bishop Alexander of blessed
memory cast Arius out of the Church for
holding and maintaining the following opi-
nions : ' God was not always a Father : The
Son was not always : But whereas all things
were made out of nothing, the Son of God also
was made out of nothing : And since all things
are creatures, He also is a creature and a thing
made : And since all things once were not,
but were afterwards made, there was a time
when the Word of God Himself was not ; and
He was not before He was begotten, but He
had a beginning of existence : For He has
then originated when God has chosen to pro-
duce Him : For He also is one among the rest
of His works. And since He is by nature
changeable, and only continues good because
He chooses by His own free will. He is capa-
ble of being changed, as are all other things,
whenever He wishes. And therefore God, as
foreknowing that He would be good, gave Him
by anticipation that glory which He would have
obtained afterwards by His virtue ; and He is
now become good by His works which God
foreknew.' Accordingly they say, that Christ
is not truly God, but that He is called God on
account of His participation in God's nature,
as are all other creatures. And they add, that
He is not that Word which is by nature in the
Father, and is proper to His Essence, nor is
He His proper wisdom by which He made this
world ; but that there is another Word s which
is properly in the Father, and another Wisdom
which is properly in the Father, by which Wis-
dom also He made this Word ; and that the
Lord Himself is called the Word (Reason) con-
ceptually in regard of things endued with rea-
son, and is called Wisdom conceptually in re-
gard of things endued with wisdom. Nay, they
say that as all things are in essence separate
and alien from the Father, so He also is in all
respects separate and alien from the essence
4 Cf. Orat. i. § 35 note.
S Cf. De Syn. §§ 15, 18.
of the Father, and properly belongs to things
made and created, and is one of them; for
He is a creature, and a thing made, and a
work. Again, they say ^ that God did not create
us for His sake, but Him for our sakes. For they
say, * God was alone, and the Word was not
with Him, but afterwards when He would pro-
duce us, then He made Him; and from the
time He was made. He called Him the Word,
and the Son, and the Wisdom, in order that
He might create us by Him. And as all things
subsisted by the will of God, and did not exist
before; so He also was made by the will of
God, and did not exist before. For the Word
is not the proper and natural Offspring of the
Father, but has Himself originated by grace :
for God who existed made by His will the
Son who did not exist, by which will also He
made all things, and produced, and created,
and willed them to come into being.' More-
over they say also, that Christ is not the natural
and true power of God; but as the locust
and the cankerworm are called a power 7, so
also He is called the power of the Father.
Furthermore he said, that the Father is
secret from the Son, and that the Son can
neither see nor know the Father perfectly and
exactly. For having a beginning of existence.
He cannot know Him that is without begin-
ning ; but what He knows and sees. He knows
and sees in a measure proportionate to His own
measure, as we also know and see in proportion
to our powers. And he added also, that the
Son not only does not know His own Father
exactly, but that He does not even know His
own essence.
13. Arguments from Scripture against Arian
statements.
For maintaining these and the like opinions
Arius was declared a heretic ; for myself, while
I have merely been writing them down, I
have been cleansing myself by thinking of
the contrary doctrines, and by holding fast
the sense of the true faith. For the Bi-
shops who all assembled from all parts at the
Council of Nicaea, began to hold their ears
at these statements, and all with one voice
condemned this heresy on account of them,
and anathematized it, declaring it to be alien
and estranged from the faith of the Church. It
was no compulsion which led the judges to
this decision, but they all deliberately vindi-
cated the truth 8; and they did so justly and
6 De Syn. 15—19- . . _ .
7 Joel ii. 25. [With this entire section, compare Socr. i. 5,
de Deer. 6, de Syn. 15,^ Orat. i. 5. 6, ad Afros 5, Vit. Ani. 69,
and the De^osztio Arit.'] „, , rr ^
8 Cf. Ep. adjov. (Letter 56, below), § 2. Theod. H. E. v. 9.
p. 205, 1. 17. vid. Keble on Primitive Trad. p. 122. 10. 'Let each
boldly set down his faith in writing, having the fear of God before
23©
AD EPISCOPOS ^GYPTI.
rightly. For infidelity is coming in through
these men, or rather a Judaism counter to the
Scriptures, which has close upon it Gentile
superstition, so that he who holds these
opinions can no longer be even called a Chris-
tian, for they are all contrary to the Scriptures.
John, for instance, saith, 'In the beginning
was the Word 9 • ' but these men say, ' He was
not, before He was begotten.' And again
he wrote, 'And we are in Him that is true,
even in His Son Jesus Christ ; this is the true
God, and eternal life '° ; ' but these men, as if
in contradiction to this, allege that Christ is
not the true God, but that He is only called
God, as are other creatures, in regard of His
participation in the divine nature. And the
Apostle blames the Gentiles, because they
Avorship the creatures, saying, ' They served
the creature more than ' God ' the Creator ^'
But if these men say that the Lord is a creature,
and worship Him as a creature, how do they
differ from the Gentiles ? If they hold this opi-
nion, is not this passage also against them ; and
does not the blessed Paul write as blaming
them ? The Lord also says, ' I and My Father
are One : ' and ' He that hath seen Me, hath
seen the Father ^ ; ' and the Apostle who was
sent by Him to preach, writes, ' Who being
the Brightness of His glory, and the express
Image of His Persons.' But these men dare to
separate them, and to say that He is alien from
the essence and eternity of the Father ; and
impiously to represent Him as changeable, not
perceiving, that by speaking thus, they make
Him to be, not one with the Father, but one
with created things. Who does not see, that
the brightness cannot be separated from the
light, but that it is by nature proper to it, and
co-existent with it, and is not produced after
it ? Again, when the Father says, ' This is My
beloved Son +,' and when the Scriptures say that
' He is the Word ' of the Father, by whom
' the heavens were established s,' and in short,
' All things were made by Him ^ ; ' these in-
ventors of new doctrines and fictions represent
that there is another Word, and another Wis-
dom of the Father, and that He is only called
the Word and the Wisdom conceptually on
account of things endued with reason, while
they perceive not the absurdity of this.
14. Arguments from Scripture against Arian
statements.
But if He be styled the Word and the Wis-
dom by a fiction on our account, what He
his eyes.' Cone. Chalced. Sess. i. Hard. t. 2. 273. 'Give dili-
gence without fear, favour, or dislike, to set out the faith in its
purity.' ibid. p. 285. 9 John i. i. 10 i John v. 20.
1 Rom. i. 25. supr. § 4, and note on Or. i. 8, also Vit. Ant. 69.
2 John X. 30 ; xiv. 9, and Or. i. 34, note. 3 Heb. i. 3.
4 Matt. xvii. 5, 5 Ps. xxxiii. 6. 6 John . 3.
really is they cannot tell ?. For if the Scrip-
tures affirm that the Lord is both these, and
yet these men will not allow Him to be so, it
is plain that in their godless opposition to the
Scriptures they would deny His existence alto-
gether. The faithful are able to conclude this
truth both from the voice of the Father Himself,
and from the Angels that worshipped Him, and
from the Saints that have written concerning
Him ; but these men, as they have not a pure
mind, and cannot bear to hear the words of
divine men who teach of God, may be able to
learn something even from the devils who
resemble them, for they spoke of Him, not as
if there were many besides, but, as knowing
Him alone, they said, ' Thou art the Holy One
of God,' and ' the Son of God^.' He also who
suggested to them this heresy, while tempting
Him, in the mount, said not, * If Thou also be
a Son of God,' as though there were others be-
sides Him, but, ' If Thou be the 8^' Son of God,'
as being the only one. But as the Gentiles,,
having fallen from the notion of one God, have
sunk into polytheism, so these wonderful men,
not believing that the Word of the Father is
one, have come to adopt the idea of many
words, and they deny Him that is really God
and the true Word, and have dared to conceive
of Him as a creature, not perceiving how full
of impiety is the thought. For if He be
a creature, how is He at the same time the
Creator of creatures? or how the Son nnd the
Wisdom and the Word ? For the Word is not
created, but begotten ; and a creature is not
a Son, but a production. And if all creatures
were made by Him, and He is also a creature,
then by whom was He made ? Things made
must of necessity originate through some one ;
as in fact they have originated through the
Word ; because He was not Himself a thing
made, but the Word of the Father. And
again, if there be another wisdom in the
Father beside the Lord, then Wisdom has
originated in wisdom : and if the Word of
God be the Wisdom of God, then the Word
has originated in a word : and if the Son be
the Word of God, then the Son must have
been made in the Son.
15. Arguments from Scripture against Arian
statements.
How is it that the Lord has said, * I am in
the Father, and the Father in Me 9,' if there be
another in the Father, by whom the Lord
Himself also was made ? And how is it that
John, passing over that other, relates of this
7 Cf. de. Deer. 6, note 5. ^ Mark i. 24 ; Matt. viii. tg.
8» [Matt. iv. 3 ; Luke iv. 3. No existing text appears to beai
out Athanasius in his insertion of the definite article.]
9 John xiv. 10.
TO THE BISHOPS OF EGYPT.
231
One, saying, * All things were made by Him ;
and without Him was not any thing made '°? '
If all things that were made by the will of God
were made by Him, how can He be Himself
one of the things that were made ? And when
the Apostle says, ' For whom are all things,
and by whom are all things ',' how can these
men say, that we were not made for Him, but
He for us? If it be so. He ought to have said,
' For whom the Word was made ; ' but He saith
not so, but, ' For whom are all things, and by
whom are all things,' thus proving these men to
be heretical and false. But further, as they
have had the boldness to say that there is
another Word in God, and since they cannot
bring any clear proof of this from the Scrip
tures, let them but shew one work of His, or
one work of the Father that was done without
this Word ; so that they may seem to have
some ground at least for their own idea. The
works of the true Word are manifest to all, so
as for Him to be contemplated by analogy
from them. For as, when we see the creation,
we conceive of God as the Creator of it ; so
when we see that nothing is without order
therein, but that all things move and continue
with order and providence, we infer a Word of
God who is over all and governs all. This too
the holy Scriptures testify, declaring that He
is the Word of God, and that ' all things were
made by Him, and without Him was not any
thing made^' But of that other Word, of
whom they speak, there is neither word nor
work that they have to shew. Nay, even the
Father Himself, when He says, ' This is My
beloved Son 3/ signifies that besides Him
there is none other
16. Arians parallel to the Manichees.
It appears then that so far as these doctrines
are concerned, these wonderful men have now
joined themselves to the Manichees. For these
also confess the existence of a good God, so far
as the mere name goes, but they are unable to
point out any of His works either visible or in-
visible. But inasmuch as they deny Him who
is truly and indeed God, the Maker of heaven
and earth, and of all things invisible, they are
mere inventors of fables. And this appears to
me to be the case with these evil-minded men.
They see the works of the true Word who
alone is in the Father, and yet they deny Him,
and make to themselves another Word '•,
whose existence they are unable to prove
either by His Works or by the testimony of
others. Unless it be that they have adopted
»o John i. 3.
3 Matt. xvii. 5.
* Heb. 11. 10. * Joh. i, 3.
4 Vid. passage in Orat. iL 39 fin.
a fabulous notion of God, that He is a com-
posite being like man, speaking and then
changing His words, and as a man exercising
understanding and wisdom ; not perceiving to
what absurdities they are reduced by such an
opinion. For if God has a succession of
words 5, they certainly must consider Him as
a man. And if those words proceed from
Him and then vanish away, they are guilty of
a greater impiety, because they resolve into
nothing what proceeds from the self-existent
God. If they conceive that God doth at all
beget, it were surely better and more rehgious
to say that He is the begetter of One Word,
who is the fulness of His Godhead, in whom
are hidden the treasures of all knowledge^, and
that He is co-existent with His Father, and
that all things were made by Him ; rather than
to suppose God to be the Father of many
words which are nowhere to be found, or to
represent Him who is simple in His nature as
compounded of many t, and as being subject to
human passions and variable. Next whereas
the Apostle says, ' Christ the power of God and
the wisdom of God ^,' these men reckon Him
but as one among many powers ; nay, worse
than this, they compare Him, transgressors as
they are, with the cankerworm and other irra-
tional creatures which are sent by Him for the
punishment of men. Next, whereas the Lord
says, ' No one knoweth the Father, save the
Son 9 ; ' and again, ' Not that any man hath
seen the Father save He which is of the
Father'";' are not these indeed enemies of God
which say that the Father is neither seen nor
known of the Son perfectly ? If the Lord says,
' As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I
the Father",' and if the Father knows not the
Son partially, are they not mad to say idly that
the Son knows the Father only partially, and
not fully ? Next, if the Son has a beginning of
existence, and all things likewise have a begin-
ning, let them say, which is prior to the other.
But indeed they have nothing to say, neither
can they with all their craft prove such a be-
ginning of the Word. For He is the true and
proper Offspring of the Father, and ' in the be-
ginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God ^* For with regard
to their assertion, that the Son knows not His
own essence, it is superfluous to reply to it,
except only so far as to condemn their mad-
ness ; for how does not the Word know Him-
self, when He imparts to all men the know-
ledge of His Father and of Himself, and
blames those who know not themselves?
S de Deer. 16, note 4.
note 9. 81 Cor. i. 24
II John X. 15.
6 Cf. Col. ii. 3, 9.
9 Matt. xi. 27.
I John i. I.
7 de Deer. 22
10 John vi. 46.
232
AD EPISCOPOS ^GYPTI.
17, Arguments from Scripture against Arian
statements.
But it is written », say they, * The Lord created
me in the beginning of His ways for His works.'
O untaught and insensate that ye are ! He is
called also in the Scriptures, ' servant 3,' and
* son of a handmaid,' and ' lamb,' and ' sheep,'
and it is said that He suffered toil, and thirst,
and was beaten, and has suffered pain. But
there is plainly a reasonable ground and cause •♦,
why such representations as these are given of
Him in the Scriptures ; and it is because He
became man and the Son of man, and took
upon Him the form of a servant, which is the
human flesh : for ' the Word,' says John, * was
made flesh s.' And since He became man, no
one ought to be offended at such expressions ;
for it is proper to man to be created, and born,
and formed, to suffer toil and pain, to die and
to rise again from the dead. And as, being
Word and Wisdom of the Father, He has all the
attributes of the Father, His eternity, and His
unchangeableness, and the being like Him in all
respects and in all things ^, and is neither be-
fore nor after, but co-existent with the Father,
and is the very form ^ of the Godhead, and is
the Creator, and is not created : (for since
He is in essence hke^ the Father, He can-
not be a creature, but must be the Creator,
as Himself hath said, ' My Father worketh
hitherto, and I work 9:') so being made man,
and bearing our flesh. He is necessarily said to
be created and made, and that is proper to all
flesh ; however, these men, like Jewish vintners,
who mix their wine with water ^, debase the
Word, and subject His Godhead to their no-
tions of created things. Wherefore the Fathers
were with reason and justice indignant, and
anathematized this most impious heresy ; which
these persons are now cautious of and keep
back, as being easy to be disproved and un-
sound in every part of it. These that I have
set down are but a few of the arguments which
go to condemn their doctrines ; but if any one
desires to enter more at large into the proof
against them, he will find that this heresy is
not far removed from heathenism, and that it
is the lowest and the very dregs of all the
other heresies. These last are in error either
concerning the body or the incarnation of the
Lord, falsifying the truth, some in one way and
some in another, or else they deny that the
Lord has sojourned here at all, as the Jews
erroneously suppose. But this one alone more
madly than the rest has dared to assail the
» Orat. ii. 18 — 72 ; Prov. viii. 22. 3 Ps. cxvi. 16, &c.
4 de Deer. 14. 5 John i. 14. 6 De Syn. 26, and note.
7 elSos, ibid. § 52, note. 8 Orat. i. 20, note. 9 John v. 17.
» Isa. i. 22, cf. Orat. iiU § 35, also de Deer. 10 end.
very Godhead, and to assert that the Word is
not at all, and that the Father was not always
a father; so that one might reasonably say
that that Psalm was written against them ;
'The fool hath said in his heart, there is no
God '^. Corrupt are they, and become abomin-
able in their doings.'
18. If the Ariansfelt they were rights they
would speak openly.
* But,' say they, * we are strong, and are able
to defend our heresy by our many devices.'
They would have a better answer to give, if
they were able to defend it, not by artifice nor
by Gentile sophisms, but by the simplicity of
their faith. If however they have confidence
in it, and know it to be in accordance with the
doctrines of the Church, let them openly express
their sentiments ; for no man when he hath
lighted a candle putteth it under the bushel 3,
but on the candlestick, and so it gives light to
all that come in. If therefore they are able to
defend it, let them record in writing the opi-
nions above imputed to them, and expose their
heresy bare to the view of all men, as they
would a candle, and let them openly accuse the
Bishop Alexander, of blessed memory, as hav-
ing unjustly ejected 4 Arius for professing these
opinions ; and let them blame the Council of
Nicsea for putting forth a written confession
of the true faith in place of their impiety.
But they will not do this, I am sure, for they
are not so ignorant of the evil nature of those
notions which they have invented and are
ambitious of sowing abroad ; but they know
well enough, that although they may at first
lead astray the simple by vain deceit, yet their
imaginations will soon be extinguished, ' as
the Hght of the ungodly 4*,' and themselves
branded everywhere as enemies of the Truth.
Therefore although they do all things fool-
ishly, and speak as fools, yet in this at least
they have acted wisely, as ' children of this
world 5,' hiding their candle under the bushel,
that it may be supposed to give light, and lest,
if it appear, it be condemned and extinguished.
Thus when Arius himself, the author of the
heresy, and the associate of Eusebius, was sum-
moned through the interest of Eusebius and his
fellows to appear before Constantine Augustus
of blessed memory^, and was required to present
a written declaration of his faith, the wily man
wrote one, but kept out of sight the peculiar ex-
pressions of his impiety, and pretended, as the
Devil did, to quote the simple words of Scrip-
ture, just as they are written. And when the
blessed Constantine said to him, 'If thou
s Ps. liii. 1.
4* Job xviii. S.
3 Matt. V. 15.
5 Luke xvi. 8.
4 Infr. § 21, note.
6 Vld. Letter 54.
TO THE BISHOPS OF EGYPT.
233
boldest no other opinions in thy mind besides
these, take the Truth to witness for thee ; the
Lord is thy avenger if thou swear falsely : ' the
unfortunate man swore that he held no other,
and that he had never either spoken or thought
otherwise than as he had now written. But as
soon as he went out he dropped down, as if
paying the penalty of his crime, and ' faUing
headlong burst asunder in the midst ?.'
19. Significance of the death of Arius.
Death, it is true, is the common end of all
men, and we ought not to insult the dead,
though he be an enemy, for it is uncertain
whether the same event may not happen to
ourselves before evening. But the end of Arius
was not after an ordinary manner, and there-
fore it deserves to be related. Eusebius and
his fellows threatening to bring him into the
Church, Alexander, the Bishop of Constanti-
nople, resisted them ; but Arius trusted to the
violence and menace of Eusebius. It was the
Sabbath, and he expected to join communion
on the following day. There was therefore a
great struggle between them ; the others threat-
ening, Alexander praying. But the Lord being
judge of the case, decided against the unjust
party : for the sun had not set, when the ne-
cessities of nature compelled him to that place,
where he fell down, and was forthwith deprived
of communion with the Church and of his life
together. The blessed Constantine hearing
of this at once, was struck with wonder to find
him thus convicted of perjury. And indeed it
was then evident to all that the threats of Eu-
sebius and his fellows had proved of no avail,
and the hope of Arius had become vain. It was
shewn too that the Arian madness was rejected
from communion by our Saviour both here
and in the Church of the first-born in heaven.
Now who will not wonder to see the unright-
eous ambition of these men, whom the Lord
has condemned ; — to see them vindicating the
heresy which the Lord has pronounced excom-
municate (since He did not suffer its author to
enter into the Church), and not fearing that
which is written, but attempting impossible
things ? ' For the Lord of hosts hath pur-
posed, and who shall disannul it^?' and whom
God hath condemned, who shall justify ? I>et
them however in defence of their own imagina-
tions write what they please ; but do you,
brethren, as ' bearing the vessels of the Lords,'
and vindicating the doctrines of the Church,
examine this matter, I beseech you \ and if
they write iii other terms than those above
recorded as the language of Arius, then con-
demn them as hypocrites, who hide the poison
* Acts i. 18.
8 Is. xiv. 37.
9 Is. Hi. II.
of their opinions, and like the serpent flatter
with the words of their lips. For, though they
thus write, they have associated with them
those who were formerly rejected with Arius,
such as Secundus of Pentapolis, and the clergy
who were convicted at Alexandria ; and thay
write to them in Alexandria. But what is
most astonishing, they have caused us and our
friends to be persecuted, although the most
religious Emperor Constantine sent us back in
peace to our country and Church, and shewed
his concern for the harmony of the people.
But now they have caused the Churches to be
given up to these men, thus proving to all that
for their sake the whole conspiracy against
us and the rest has been carried on from the
beginning.
20. While they are friends of Arius, in vain
their moderate words.
Now while such is their conduct, how can
they claim credit for what they write? Had
the opinions they have put in writing been
orthodox, they would have expunged from
their list of books the Thalia of Arius, and
have rejected the scions of the heresy, viz.
those disciples of Arius, and the partners of
his impiety and his punishment. But since
they do not renounce these, it is manifest
to all that their sentiments are not orthodox,
though they write them over ten thousand
times ^. Wherefore it becomes us to watch,
lest some deception be conveyed under the
clothing of their phrases, and they lead away
certain from the true faith. And if they
venture to advance the opinions of Arius,
when they see themselves proceeding in a
prosperous course, nothing remains for us but
to use great boldness of speech, remembering
the predictions of the Apostle, which he wrote
to forewarn us of such like heresies, and which
it becomes us to repeat. For we know that,
as it is written, ' in the latter times some shall
depart from the sound faith, giving heed to
seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, that
turn from the truth ^ ; ' and, ' as many as will
live godly in Christ shall suffer persecution.
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse
and worse, deceiving and being deceived.'
But none of these things shall prevail over us,
nor 'separate us from the love of Christ 3,'
though the heretics threaten us with death.
For we are Christians, not Arians*; would
that they too, who have written these things,
had not embraced the doctrines of Arius !
Yea, brethren, there is need now of such bold-
ness of speech ; for we have not received ' the
« Cf. De Syn. 6, 9. " i Tim. iv. i ; Tit. i. 14 ; 2 Tim. iii. 12.
3 Rom. viii. 35. 4 Orat. i. 2, 10.
234
AD EPISCOPOS ^GYPTI.
spirit of bondage again to fear s/ but God hath
called us 'to liberty^.' And it were indeed
disgraceful to us, most disgraceful, were we,
on account of Arius or of those who embrace
and advocate his sentiments, to destroy the
faith which we have received from our Saviour
through His Apostles. Already very many in
these parts, perceiving the craftiness of these
writers, are ready even unto blood to oppose
their wiles, especially since they have heard of
your firmness. And seeing that the refutation
of the heresy has gone forth from you 7, and
it has been drawn forth from its concealment,
like a serpent from his hole, the Child that
Herod sought to destroy is preserved among
you, and the Truth lives in you, and the Faith
thrives among you.
21. To make a stand for the Faith equivalent
to martyrdom.
Wherefore I exhort you, keeping in your
hands the confession which was framed by
the Fathers at Nicsea, and defending it with
great zeal and confidence in the Lord, be en-
samples to the brethren everywhere, and shew
them that a struggle is now before us in sup-
port of the Truth against heresy, and that the
wiles of the enemy are various. For the proof of
a martyr lies ^ not only in refusing to burn in-
cense to idols ; but to refuse to deny the Faith
is also an illustrious testimony of a good con-
science. And not only those who turned aside
unto idols were condemned as aliens, but those
also who betrayed the Truth. Thus Judas
was degraded from the Apostolical office, not
because he sacrificed to idols, but because he
proved a traitor ; and Hymenaeus and Alexander
fell away not by betaking themselves to the
service of idols, but because they 'made ship-
wreck concerning the faith 9,' On the other
hand, the Patriarch Abraham received the
crown, not because he suffered death, but be-
cause he was faithful unto God ; and the other
Saints, of whom Paul speaks ^=, Gideon, Barak,
Samson, Jephtha, David and Samuel, and the
rest, were not made perfect by the shedding of
their blood, but by faith they were justified ;
and to this day they are the objects of our ad-
miration, as being ready even to suffer death
for piety towards the Lord. And if one may
add an instance from our own country, ye
know how the blessed Alexander contended
even unto death against this heresy, and what
great afflictions and labours, old man as he
was, he sustained, until in extreme age he also
was gathered to his fathers. And how many
beside have undergone great toil, in their
i ^Tc"-"- ^^7 • * '^^'- "• ^3- 7 i.e. from Egypt.
» Vid. Suicer Thes. in voc. fjiapr. iii. [D.C.A. 1118 sqq 1
9 I Tim. i. 19. 10 Hel). xi. 32, &c.
teachings against this impiety, and now enjoy
in Christ the glorious reward of their confes-
sion ! Wherefore, let us also, considering that
this struggle is for our all, and that the choice
is now before us, either to deny or to preserve
the faith, let us also make it our earnest care
and aim to guard what we have received,
taking as our instruction the Confession drawn
up at Nicaea, and let us turn away from novel-
ties, and teach our people not to give heed to
' seducing spirits S' but altogether to withdraw
from the impiety of the Arian madmen, and
from the coalition which the Meletians have
made with them.
22. Coalition of sordid Meletiatis with
insane Arians.
For you perceive how, though they were
formerly at variance with one another, they
have now, like Herod and Pontius, agreed
together in order to blaspheme our Lord Jesus
Christ. And for this they truly deserve the
hatred of every man, because they were at
enmity with one another on private grounds,
but have now become friends and join hands,
in their hostiHty to the Truth and their impiety
towards God. ' Nay, they are content to do
or suffer anything, however contrary to their
principles, for the satisfaction of securing their
several aims ; the Meletians for the sake of
pre-eminence and the mad love of money,
and the Arian madmen for their own impiety.
And thus by this coalition they are able ta
assist one another in their malicious designs,
while the Meletians put on the impiety of the
Arians, and the Arians from their own wicked-
ness concur in their baseness, so that by thus
mingling together their respective crimes, like
the cup of Babylon '% they may carry on their
plots against the orthodox worshippers of our
Lord Jesus Christ. The wickedness and false-
hood of the Meletians were indeed even before
this evident unto all men ; so too the impiety
and godless heresy of the Arians have long
been known everywhere and to all; for the
period of their existence has not been a short
one. The former became schismatics five and
fifty years ago, and it is thirty-six years since
the latter were pronounced heretics ^, and they
were rejected from the Church by the judg-
ment of the whole Ecumenic Council. But
by their present proceedings they have proved
at length, even to those who seem openly to
favour them, that they have carried on their
^ I Tim. iv. I. I* Rev. xviii. 6.
* This aTroSet'^is or declaration is ascribed to S. Alexander (as
Montfaucon would explain it, supr. introd. p. 222). Cf. Ap. Ar. 23,
above, §§ 18, 19. It should be observed that an additional reason
for assigning this Letter to the year 356, is its resemblance in parts
to the Orations which were written not long after. [This is not
a strong reason, there being no proof that the Orations were written
early in the exile]
TO THE BISHOPS OF EGYPT.
23S
designs against me and the rest of the ortho-
dox Bishops from the very first solely for the
sake of advancing their own impious heresy.
For observe, that which was long ago the great
object of Eusebius and his fellows is now brought
about. They have caused the Churches to be
snatched out of our hands, they have banished,
as they pleased, the Bishops and Presbyters
who refused to communicate with them ; and
the people who withdrew from them they have
excluded from the Churches, which they have
given up into the hands of the Arians who
were condemned so long ago, so that with the
assistance of the hypocrisy of the Meletians
they can without fear pour forth in them their
impious language, and make ready, as they
think, the way of deceit for Antichrist 3, who
sowed among them the seeds of this heresy.
23. Conclusion,
Let them however thus dream and imagine
vain things. We know that when our gracious
Emperor shall hear of it, he will put a stop to
their wickedness, and they will not continue
long, but according to the words of Scripture,
'the hearts of the impious shall quickly fail
them 4.' But let us, as it is written, 'put on
the words of holy Scripture s,' and resist them
as apostates who would set up fanaticism in
the house of the Lord. And let us not fear
the death of the body, nor let us emulate their
ways ; but let the word of Truth be preferred
before all things. We also, as you all know,
were formerly required ^ by Eusebius and his
fellows either to put on their impiety, or to ex-
pect their hostility ; but we would not engage
3 De Syn. s, note lo.
5 8 Kings xvii, g, LXX.
4 Prov. X. 20, LXX.
6 Ai>ol. Ar.% 59.
ourselves with them, but chose rather to be per-
secuted by them, than to imitate the conduct of
Judas. And assuredly they have done what
they threatened ; for after the manner of Jeze-
bel, they engaged the treacherous Meletians to
assist them, knowing how the latter resisted
the blessed martyr Peter, and after him the
great Achillas, and then Alexander, of blessed
memory, in order that, as being practised in
such matters,- the Meletians might pretend
against us also whatever might be suggested to
them, while Eusebius and his fellows gave them
an oi:)ening for persecuting and for seeking to
kill me. For this is what they thirst after ; and
they continue to this day to desire to shed my
blood. But of these things I have no care ; for
I know and am persuaded that they who endure
shall receive a reward from our Saviour ; and
that ye also, if ye endure as the Fathers did,
and shew yourselves examples to the people,
and overthrow these strange and alien devices
of impious men, shall be able to glory, and
say. We have ' kept the Faith 7 ; ' and ye shall
receive the 'crown of life,' which God 'hath
promised to them that love Him ^.' And God
grant that I also together with you may in-
herit the promises, which, were given, not to
Paul only, but also to all them that 'have
loved the appearing 9' of our Lord, and Saviour,
and God, and universal King, Jesus Christ ;
through whom to the Father be glory and
dominion in the Holy Spirit, both now and
for ever, world without end ^°. Amen.
7 2 Tim. iv. 7. 8 James i. 12. 9 2 Tim. iv. 3.
^0 [Cf. the doxology at the end of Ajiol. pro Fuga, and (with
a difference) that of Hist. A r. 80, contrasting that in de Deer. 3a.
Dr. Bright observes that Athan. ' felt himself free to use both
forms, although at Antioch they became symbols respectively of
the Arianisers and the Orthodox.']
APOLOGIA AD CONSTANTIUM.
This address to the Emperor in defence against certain serious charges (see below)
was completed about the time of the intrusion of George, who arrived at Alexandria on
Feb. 24, 357. The main, or apologetic, part of the letter was probably composed before
George's actual arrival, in fact at about the same date as the encyclical letter which
immediately precedes; §§27 and following (see 27, note 2) forming an added expostu-
lation upon hearing of the general expulsion of Catholic Bishops, and of the outrages * at
Alexandria. It is quite uncertain whether it ever reached the emperor; whether it did
so or not, his attitude toward Athanasius was in no way affected by it. It had probably
been begun with the idea of its being actually delivered in the presence of Constantius
(see §§3, 6, 8, 16 'I see you smile,' 22), but, although by a rhetorical fiction the form of an oral
defence is kept up to the end, the concluding sections (27, 32 init^ shew that any such idea
had been renounced before the Apology was completed. The first 26 sections are directed to
the refutation of four personal charges, quite different from those of the earlier period, rebutted
in the Apology against the Arians. They were (i) that Athanasius had poisoned the mind
of Constans against his brother (2 — 5). To this Ath. replies that he had never spoken to
the deceased Augustus except in the presence of witnesses, and that the history of his own
movements when in the West entirely precluded any such possibility. The third and fourth
sections thus incidentally supply important details for the life of Athanasius. (2) That he had
written letters to the 'tyrant' Magnentius (6 — 13), a charge absurd in itself, and only to be
borne out by forgery, but also amply disproved by his known affection toward Constans, the
victim of the 'tyrant.' (3) That he had (14 — 18) used the new church in the 'Caesareum,'
before it was completed or dedicated, for the Easter festival of 355 (Tillem. viii. 149). This
Athanasius admits, but pleads necessity and precedent, adding that no disrespect was intended
toward the donor, nor any anticipation of its formal consecration. (4) That he had dis-
obeyed an imperial order to leave Alexandria and go to Italy (19 — 26, see esp. 19, n. 4, and
Fest. Ind. xxvi. Constantius is at Milan July 21, 353 — Gwatkin p. 292). This charge involves
the whole history of the attempts to dislodge Athanasius from Alexandria, which culminated in
the events of 356. He rephes to the charge, that the summons in question had come in the
form of an invitation in reply to an alleged letter of his own asking leave to go to Italy, a letter
which, as his amanuenses would testify, he had never written. Of the later visit (355, Fest. Ind.
xxvii.) of Diogenes, he merely says that Diogenes brought neither letter nor orders. Syrianus,
he seems to allow, had verbally ordered him to Italy (Constantius was again at Milan, — Gwat-
kin ubi supra) but without written authority. As against these supposed orders, Ath. had
a letter from the emperor (§ 23) exhorting him to remain at Alexandria, whatever reports he
might hear. Syrianus had, at the urgent remonstrance of the clergy and people, consented to
refer the matter back to Constantius (24), but without waiting to do this, he had suddenly made
his famous night attack upon the bishop when holding a vigil service in the Church of Theonas.
Thereupon Athanasius had set out for Italy to lay the matter before the emperor in person
(27 init.). But on reaching, as it would seem, the Libyan portion of his Province, he was
turned back by the news of the Council of Milan, and the wholesale banishment which followed.
Here we pass to the second part of the Apology. He explains his return to the desert by the
three reports which had reached him : first, that just mentioned ; secondly, that of further
military outrages, about Easter 356 (or possibly those of George in 357, see Apol. Fug. 6 ; the
clear statements of Fest. Ind. and Hist Aceph. compel us ^ to place these in the latter year,
• See Afiol. Fitg. 6, note 5. « See also note i, supr.^ and the discussion Prolegg. ch. ii. \ 8 (i).
APOLOGIA AD CONSTANTIUM. 237
although on d priori grounds we might have followed Tillem., Bright, &c., in placing them
in 356), and of the nomination of George; thirdly, of the letters of Constantius to the Alex-
andrians and to the Princes of Abyssinia. He had accordingly gone into hiding, in fear,
not of the Emperor, but of the violence of his officers, and as of bounden duty to all (32).
He concludes with an outspoken denunciation of the treatment of the virgins, and by an
urgent entreaty to Constantius ' which supposes the imperial listener to be already more than
half appeased ' (Bright). The Apology is the most carefully written work of Athanasius, and
* has been justly praised for its artistic finish and its rhetorical skill ' as well as for the force and
the sustained calmness and dignity of its diction. (So Montfaucon, Newman, Gwatkin, &c.
Fialon, pp. 286, 292, gives some interesting examples of apparent imitation of Demosthenes
in this and in the two following tracts.) But the violent contrast between its almost
affectionate respectfulness and the chilly reserve of the Apol. pro Fuga, or still lUDre the
furious invective of the Arian History, is startling, and gives a prima facie justification to
Gibbon, who (vol. 3, p. 87, Smith's Ed.) charges the great bishop with simulating respect
to the emperor's face while denouncing him behind his back. But although the de Fuga
(see introd. there) was written very soon after our present Apology, there is no ground for
making them simultaneous, while its tone (see Ap. Fug. 26, note 7) is very different from
that of the later Hist. Arian. Doubtless, much of the material for the invectives of the
latter was already ancient history when the tract before us was composed. But Constantius
was the Emperor, the first personage in the Christian world, and Athanasius with the feeling
of his age, with the memory of the solemn assurances he had received from the Emperor
(§§ 23, 25, 27, Apol. Ar. 51 — 56, Hist. Ar. 21 — 24), would 'hope all things,' even 'against
hope,' so long as there was any apparent chance of influencing Constantius for good ; would
hope in spite of all appearances that the outrages, banishments, and intrigues against the faith
of Nicsea were the work of the officers, the Arian bishops, the eunuchs of the Court, and
not of ' Augustus ' himself (see Bright, Introd. to this Apology, pp. Ixiii. — Ixv.).
DEFENCE BEFORE CONSTANTIUS.
I. Knowing that you have been a Christian
for many years ^, most religious Augustus, and
that you are godly by descent, I cheerfully
undertake to answer for myself at this time ; —
for I will use the language of the blessed Paul,
and make him my advocate before you, con-
sidering that he was a preacher of the truth,
and that you are an attentive hearer of his
words.
With respect to those ecclesiastical matters,
which have been made the ground of a con-
spiracy against me, it is sufficient to refer your
Piety to the testimony of the many Bishops
who have written in my behalf 2; enough too
is the recantation of Ursacius and Valens 3, to
prove to all men, that none of the charges
which they set up against me had any truth in
them. For what evidence can others produce
so strong, as what they declared in writing?
'We lied, we invented these things; all the
accusations against Athanasius are full of false-
hood.' To this clear proof may be added, if
you will vouchsafe to hear it, this circumstance,
that the accusers brought no evidence against
Macarius the presbyter while we were present ;
but in oar absence 4, when they were by them-
selves, they managed the matter as they pleased.
Now, the Divine Law first of all, and next our
own Laws s, have expressly declared, that such
proceedings are of no force whatsoever. From
these things your piety, as a lover of God
and of the truth, will, I am sure, perceive that
we are free from all suspicion, and will pro-
nounce our opponents to be false accusers.
2. The first charge, of setting Const ans
against Constantius.
But as to the slanderous charge which has
been preferred against me before your Grace,
' [cf. Acts xxvi. 2.] Constantius, though here called a Christian,
was not baptized till his last illness, a.d. 361, and then by the Arian
Bishop of Antioch, Euzoius. At this time he was 39 years of age.
Theodoret represents him making a speech to his whole army on
one occasion, exhorting them to Baptism previous to going to war ;
and recommending all to go thence who could not make up their
mind to the Sacrament. H . E. iii. i. Constantius, his grandfather,
had rejected idolatry and acknowledged the One God, according to
Eusebius, V. Const, i. 14, though it does not appear that he had
embraced Christianity.
» Sufr. Aj>ol. Ar.i. 3 Apol. Ar. 1, 58.
4 ib. 13, 27, &c. 5 Cf. A/oL Ar. ii. 51.
respecting correspondence with the most pious
Augustus, your brother Constans^, of blessed
and everlasting memory (for my enemies re-
port this of me, and have ventured to assert
it in writing), the former events 7 are suf-
ficient to prove this also to be untrue. Had
it been alleged by another set of persons,
the matter would indeed have been a fit sub-
ject of enquiry, but it would have required
strong evidence, and open proof in presence of
both parties : but when the same persons who
invented the former charge, are the authors
also of this, is it not reasonable to conclude
from the issue of the one, the falsehood of the
other? For this cause they again conferred
together in private, thinking to be able to de-
ceive your Piety before I was aware. But in
this they failed : you would not listen to them
as they desired, but patiently gave me an op-
portunity to make my defence. And, in that
you were not immediately moved to demand
vengeance, you acted only as was righteous in
a Prince, whose duty it is to wait for the de-
fence of the injured party. Which if you will
vouchsafe to hear, I am confident that in this
matter also you will condemn those reckless
men, who have no fear of that God, who has
commanded us not to speak falsely before the
king ^.
3. ITe never saw Constans alone.
But in truth I am ashamed even to have to
defend myself against charges such as these,
which I do not suppose that even the accuser
himself would venture to make mention of in
my presence. For he knows full well that he
speaks untruly, and that I was never so mad,
so reft of my senses, as even to be open to the
suspicion of having conceived any such thing.
So that had I been questioned by any other on
this subject, I would not even have answered,
lest, while I was making my defence, my
hearers should for a time have suspended their
judgment concerning me. But to your Piety
I answer with a loud and clear voice, and
6 Prolegg. eh. ii. § 6 (3) ; cf. Lucifer. O/. p. 91. (ed. Yen. 1778.)
Theod. H. E. ii. 13 ; infr. Hist. Arian. § 50.
7 Vid. Apol. contr. Arian. passim. '^ Vid. Ecclus. vii. 5,
DEFENCE BEFORE CONSTANTIUS.
239
stretching forth my hand, as I have learned
from the Apostle, 'I call God for a record
upon my soul 9,' and as it is written in the
histories of the Kings (let me be allowed to
say the same), ' The Lord is witness, and His
Anointed is witness '°,' I have never spoken
evil of your Piety before your brother Con-
stans, the most religious Augustus of blessed
memory. I did not exasperate him against
you, as these have falsely accused me. But
whenever in my interviews with him he has
mentioned your Grace (and he did mention
you at the time that Thalassus ' came to Pity-
bion, and I was staying at Aquileia), the Lord
is witness, how I spoke of your Piety in terms
which I would that God would reveal unto
your soul, that you might condemn the false-
hood of these my calumniators. Bear with
me, most gracious Augustus, and freely grant
me your indulgence while I speak of this mat-
ter. Your most Christian brother was not a
man of so hght a temper, nor was I a person
of such a character, that we should commu-
nicate together on a subject like this, or that
I should slander a brother to a brother, or
speak evil of an emperor before an emperor.
I am not so mad. Sire, nor have I forgotten
that divine utterance which says, ' Curse not
the king, no, not in thy thought; and curse
not the rich in thy bedchamber : for a bird of
the air shall carry tlie voice, and that which
hath wings shall tell the matter =.' If then
those things, which are spoken in secret
against you that are kings, are not hidden,
it is not incredible that I should have spoken
against you in the presence of a king, and
of so many bystanders ? For I never saw your
brother by myself, nor did he ever converse
with me in private, but I was always intro-
duced in company with the Bishop of the city
where I happened to be, and with others that
chanced to be there. We entered the pre-
sence together, and together we retired. For-
tunatian 3, Bishop of Aquileia, can testify this,
the father Hosius is able to say the same, as
also are Crispinus, Bishop of Padua, Lucillus of
Verona, Dionysius of Leis, and Vincentius of
Campania. And although Maximinus of Tre-
veri, and Protasius of Milan, are dead, yet
Eugenius, who was Master of the Palace +,
can bear witness for me ; for he stood before
the veil s, and heard what we requested of
the Emperor, and what he vouchsafed to reply
to us.
4. The jnovemenis of Athanasius refute this
charge.
This certainly is sufficient for proof, yet
suffer me nevertheless to lay before you an
account of my travels, which will further lead
you to condemn the unfounded calumnies of
my opponents. When I left Alexandria^, I
did not go to your brother's head-quarters, or
to any other persons, but only to Rome ; and
having laid my case before the Church (for
this was my only concern), I spent my time
in the public worship. I did not write to your
brother, except when Eusebius and his fellows
had written to him to accuse me, and I was
compelled while yet at Alexandria to defend
myself; and again when I sent to him volumes ^
containing the holy Scriptures, which he had
ordered me to prepare for him. It behoves
me, while I defend my conduct, to tell the
truth to your Piety. When however three
years had passed away, he wrote to me in
the fourth year 7*, commanding me to meet
him (he was then at Milan) ; and upon en-
quiring the cause (for I was ignorant of it,
the Lord is my witness), I learnt that certain
Bishops^ had gone up and requested him to
write to your Piety, desiring that a Council
might be called. Believe me, Sire, this is the
truth of the matter; I lie not. Accordingly
I went down to Milan, and met with » great
kindness from him ; for he condescended to
see me, and to say that he had despatched
letters to you, requesting that a Council might
be called. And while I remained in that
city, he sent for me again into Gaul (for the
father Hosius was going thither), that we
might travel from thence to Sardica. And
after the Council, he wrote to me while I
continued at Naissus 9, and I went up, and
abode afterwards at Aquileia; where the
9 2 Cor. i. 23. »o I Sam. xii. 5.
I Hist. Arian. 22. vid. Afiol. Ar. 51. [' Pitybion ' is Patavia,
now Padua.] 2 Eccles. x. 20
3 All these names of Bishops occur among the subscriptions
at Sardica. supr. Ap. Ar. 50. [See also D.C B. j. vv.'\ Leis is
Lauda, or Laus Pompeia, hodie Lodi Vecchio ; Ughelli, Ital.
Sacr. t. 4. p. 656.
4 Or, master of the offices ; one of the seven Ministers of the
Court under the Empire ; ' He inspected the, discipline of the civil
and military schools, and received appeals from all parts of the
Empire.' Gibbon, ch. 17. [cf. Gwatkin, p. 285.]
5 jrpb ToC iStjAou. The Veil, which in the first instance was an
appendage to the images of pagan deities, formed at this time part
of the ceremonial of the imperial Court. It hung over the entrance
of the Emperor's bedchamber, where he gave his audiences. It
also hung before the secretarium of the Judges, vid. Hofman
in voc, Gothofred in Cod. Tkeod. i. tit. vii. i.
6 [a.d. 339.]
7 Tri/KTta, a bound book, vid. Montf. Coll. Nov. infr. Tillemont
(t. viii. p. 86.) considers that Athan. alludes in this passage to the
Synopsis Scr. Sacr. which is among his works ; but Montfaucon,
Collect. Nov. t. 2. p. xxviii. contends that a copy of the Gospels is
spoken of. [cf. D.C.B. i. 651.]
7»- [a.u. 342.]
8 Tillemont supposes that Constans was present at the Council
of Milan [345], at which Eudoxius, Martyrius, and Macedonius,
sent to the west with the Eusebian Creed, made their appearance
to no purpose. [But this was long after the events related in the
text, cf. Prolegg. ii. { 6, sub. Jin.]
9 [Easter 344, see Fest. Ind. xvi.] Naissus was situated in
Upper Dacia, and according to some was the birthplace of Con
stantine. The Bishop of the place, Gaudentius, whose name
occurs among the subscriptions at Sardica, had protected S. Paul
of Constantinople and incurred the anathemas of the Easterns at
Philippopolis. Hil. Fragin. iii. 27.
240
APOLOGIA AD CONSTANTIUM.
letters of your Piety found me. And again,
being invited thence by your departed brother,
I returned into Gaul, and so came at length
to your Piety.
5. No possible time or place for the alleged
offence.
Now what place and time does my accuser
specify, at which I made use of these expres-
sions according to his slanderous imputation ?
In whose presence was I so mad as to
give utterance to the words which he has
falsely charged me with speaking? Who is
there ready to support the charge, and to
testify to the fact? What his own eyes have
seen that ought he to speak % as holy Scrip-
ture enjoins. But no ; he will find no wit-
nesses of that which never took place. But
I take your Piety to witness, together with
the Truth, that I lie not. I request you,
for I know you to be a person of excellent
memory, to call to mind the conversation
I had with you, when you condescended
to see me, first at Viminacium % a second
time at Caesarea in Cappadocia, and a third 3
time at Antioch. Did I speak evil before you
even of Eusebius and his fellows who had per-
secuted me ? Did I cast imputations upon
any of those that have done me wrong ? If
then I imputed nothing to any of those against
whom I had a right to speak, how could I be
so possessed with madness as to slander
an Emperor before an Emperor, and to set a
brother at variance with a brother ? I beseech
you, either cause me to appear before you that
the thing may be proved, or else condemn these
calumnies, and follow the example of David,
who says, ' Whoso privily slandereth his neigh-
bour, him will I destroy*.' As much as in
them lies, they have slain me ; for ' the mouth
that belieth, slayeth the soul s.' But your long-
suffering has prevailed against them, and given
me confidence to defend myself, that they may
suffer condemnation, as contentious and slan-
derous persons. Concerning your most religious
brother, of blessed memory, this may suffice :
for you will be able, according to the wis-
dom which God has given you, to gather much
from the little I have said, and to recognise
the fictitious charge.
6. The second charge^ of corresponding
with Magnentius.
With regard to the second calumny, that
I have written letters to the tyrant ^ (his name
I am unwilling to pronounce), I beseech you
> Prov. XXV. 7, LXX. a In Mcesia. 3 [Prolegg. ch. ii.
\ ^fin., \ 6 (3).] 4 Ps. ci. 5. 5 Wisd. i. 11.
* [On Magnentius, see Prolegg. cb. iu i 7 sub. fin. \ Gwatkin,
Studies, p. IA3 so.]
investigate and try the matter, in whatever
way you please, and by whomsoever you may
approve of. The extravagance of the charge
so confounds me, that I am in utter uncertainty
how to act. Believe me, most religious Prince,
many times did I weigh the matter in my mind,
but was unable to believe that any one could
be so mad as to utter such a falsehood. But
when this charge was published abroad by the
Arians, as well as the former, and they boasted
that they had delivered to you a copy of the
letter, I was the more amazed, and I used to
pass sleepless nights contending against the
charge, as if in the presence of my accusers ;
and suddenly breaking forth into a loud cry, I
would immediately fall to my prayers, desiring
with groans and tears that I might obtain
a favourable hearing from you. And now that
by the grace of the Lord, I have obtained such
a hearing, I am again at a loss how I shall
begin my defence ; for as often as I make an at-
tempt to speak, I am prevented by my horror at
the deed. In the case of your departed brother,
the slanderers had indeed a plausible pretence
for what they alleged ; because I had been ad-
mitted to see him, and he had condescended
to write to your brotherly affection concerning
me ; and he had often sent for me to come to
him, and had honoured me when I came. But
for the traitor Magnentius, ' the Lord is witness,
and His Anointed is witness *'",' I know him not,
nor was ever acquainted with him. What corres-
pondence then could there be between persons
so entirely unacquainted with each other?
What reason was there to induce me to write
to such a man ? How could I have commenced
my letter, had I written to him ? Could I have
said, ' You have done well to murder the man
who honoured me, whose kindness I shall
never forget ? ' Or, * I approve of your conduct
in destroying our Christian friends, and most
faithful brethren ? ' or, ' I approve of your pro-
ceedings in butchering those who so kindly en-
tertained me at Rome ; for instance, your de-
parted Aunt Eut^opia^^ whose disposition
answered to her name, that worthy man, Abu-
terius, the most faithful Spirantius, and many
other excellent persons ? '
7. This charge utterly incredible and absurd.
Is it not mere madness in my accuser even
to suspect me of such a thing ? What, I ask
again, could induce me to place confidence in
this man ? What trait did I perceive in his
character on which I could rely? He had
6» I Sam. xii. 5. . _ . . . •_ j
^ Nepotian, the son of Eutropia, Constantine's sister, bad
taken up arms against Magnentius, got possession of Rome, and
enjoyed the title of Augustus for about a month._ Magnentius put
him to death, and his mother, and a number of his adherents, some
of whom are here mentioned.
DEFENCE BEFORE CONSTANTIUS.
241
murdered his own niaster ; he had proved
faithless to his friends ; he had violated hir
oath ; he had blasphemed God, by consulting
poisoners and sorcerers 7 contrary to his Law.
And with what conscience could i send
greeting to such a man, whose madness and
cruelty had afflicted not me only, but all the
world around me ? To be sure, I was very
greatly indebted to him for his conduct, that
when your departed brother had filled our
churches with sacred offerings, he murdered
him. For the wretch was not moved by the
sight of these his gifts, nor did he stand in
awe of the divine grace which had been given
to him in baptism : but hke an accursed and
devilish spirit, he raged against him, till your
blessed brother suffered martyrdom at his
hands ; while he, henceforth a criminal like
Cain, was driven from place to place, 'groan-
ing and trembling^,' to the end that he might
follow the example of Judas in his death,
by becoming his own executioner, and so
bring upon himself a double weight of punish-
ment in the judgment to come.
8. Disproof of it.
With such a man the slanderer thought that
I had been on terms of friendship, or rather
he did not think so, but like an enemy in-
vented an incredible fiction : for he knows
full well that he has lied. I would that, who-
ever he is, he were present here, that I might
put the question to him on the word of Truth
itself (for whatever we speak as in the presence
of God, we Christians consider as an oath 9) ;
I say, that I might ask him this question,
which of us rejoiced most in the well-being
of the departed Constans? who prayed for
him most earnestly? The facts of the fore-
going charge prove this ; indeed it is plain
to every one how the case stands. But al-
though he himself knows full well, that no one
who was so disposed towards the departed
Constans, and who truly loved him, could be
a friend to his enemy, I fear that being pos-
sessed with other feelings towards him than
I was, he has falsely attributed ^to me those
sentiments of hatred which were entertained
by himself,
9. Athanasius could not write to one who
did not ei'en know him.
For myself, I am so surprised at the enor-
mity of the thing, that I am quite uncertain
what I ought to say in my defence, I can
only declare, that I condemn myself to die
ten thousand deaths, if even the least sus-
7 Bingh. Antiqu. xvi. 5. § s. &c.
8 Gen. iv. 12. LXX. vid. Hist. Ar. § 7.
9 Vid. Chrys. in EJ>h. Nicene Lib., Series I. vol. xili. p. 58.
VOL. IV.
picion attaches to me in this matter. And
to you, Sire, as a lover of the truth, I con-
fidently make my appeal. I beseech you,
as I said before, investigate this affair, and
especially with the testimony of those who were
once sent by him as ambassadors to you.
These are the Bishops Sarvatius' and Maximus
and the rest, with Clementius and Valens.
Enquire of tliem, I beseech you, whether
they brought letters to me. If they did, this
would give me occasion to write to him.
But if he did not write to me, if he did not
even know me, how could I write to one with
whom I had no acquaintance ? Ask them whe-
ther, when I saw Clementius and his fellows,
and spoke of your brother of blessed memory,
I did not, in the language of Scripture, wet
my garments with tears 2, when I remembered
his kindness of disposition and his Christian
spirit. Learn of them how anxious I was, on
hearing of the cruelty of the beast, and finding
that Valens and his company had come by
way of Libya, lest he should attempt a passage
also, and like a robber murder those who
held in love and memory the departed Prince,
among whom I account myself second to
none.
10. His loyalty towards Constantius and
his brother.
How with this apprehension of such a design
on their part, was there not an additional prob-
ability of my praying for your Grace ? Should
I feel affection for his murderer, and entertain
disHke towards you his brother who avenged
his death ? Should I remember his crime, and
forget that kindness of yours which you vouch-
safed to assure me by letters should remain,
the same towards me after your brother's
death of happy memory, as it had been during
his Hfetime? How could I have borne to
look upon the murderer? Must I not have
thought that the blessed Prince beheld me,
when I prayed for your safety ? For brothers
are by nature mirrors of each other. Where-
fore as seeing you in him, I never should
have slandered you before him; and as see-
ing him in you, never should I have written
to his enemy, instead of praying for your
safety. Of this my witnesses are, first of all,
the Lord who has heard and has given to
you entire the kingdom of your forefathers :
and next those persons who were present at
the time, Felicissimus, who was Duke of
1 Sarbatius, or Servatius, and Maximus occur in the lists of
Gallic subscriptions \supr. p. 127]. The former is supposed to be
S. Servatius or Servatio of Tungri, concerning whom at Arimi-
num, vid. Sulp. Sev. Hist. ii. 59. vid. also Greg.Turon. Hist. Fran^
ii. 5. where however the Bened. Ed. prefers to read Aravatius,
a Bishop, as he considers, of the fifth century.
2 Ps. vi. 6. 3 Cf. § 23-
242
APOLOGIA AD CONSTANTIUM.
Egypt, Rufiniis, and Stephanus, the former
of whom was Receiver-general, the latter,
Master there ; Count Asterius, and Palladius
Master of the palace, Antiochus and Evagrius
Official Agents*. I had only to say, ' Let us
pray for the safety of the most religious Em-
peror, Constantius Augustus,' and all the
people immediately cried out with one voice,
* O Christ send help to Constantius ; ' and
they continued praying thus for some times.
II. Challenge to the accusers as to the
alleged letter.
Now I have already called upon God, and
His Word, the Only-begotten Son our Lord
Jesus Christ, to witness for me, that I have
never written to that man, nor received letters
from him. And as to my accuser, give me
leave to ask him a few short questions con-
cerning this charge also. How did he come
to the knowledge of this matter ? Will he say
that he has got copies of the letter ? for this is
what the Arians laboured to prove. Now in
the first place, even if he can shew writing re-
sembling mine, the thing is not yet certain;
for there are forgers, who have often imitated
the hand^ even of you who are Emperors. And
the resemblance will not prove the genuineness
of the letter, unless my customary amanuensis
shall testify in its favour. I would then again
ask my accusers. Who provided you with these
copies ? and whence were they obtained ? I
had my writers^*, and he his servants, who
received his letters from the bearers, and gave
them into his hand. My assistants are forth-
coming ; vouchsafe to summon the others
(for they are most probably still living), and
enquire concerning these letters. Search into
the matter, as though Truth were the partner
of your throne. She is the defence of Kings,
and especially of Christian Kings; with her
4 1. The Rationales or Receivers, in Greek writers Catholici
(Aoyo^eral being understood, Vales, ad Euseb. vii. ic), were the
same as the Procurators (Gibbon, Hist. ch. xvii. note 148.), who
succeeded the Provincial Quaestors in the early times of the Empire.
They were in the department of the Comes Sacrarum Largitionum,
or High Treasurer of the Revenue (Gothofr. Cod. Theod. X. 6.
p. 327). Both Gothofr. however and Pancirolus, p. 134. Ed. 1623,
place Rationales also under the Comes Rerum Privatarum. Pan-
cirolus, p. 120. mentions the Comes Rationalis Summarum .(Egypti
as distinct from other functionaries. Gibbon, ch. xvii. seems to
say that there were in all 29, of whom 18 were counts, z. Ste-
phanus, fiayio-Tpos exet. Tillemont translates, 'Master of the
camp of Egypt,' vol. viii. p. 137. 3. The Master of the offices or of
the palace has been noticed above, p. 239, note 4. 4. dyei/Ttonjpt'^ous,
agentes in rebus. These were functionaries under the Master of
the offices, whose business it was to announce the names of the
consuls and the edicts or victories of the Empire. They at length
became spies of the Court, vid. Gibbon, ch. xvii. Gothofr. Cod.
Tk. vi. 27.
5 ' Presbyterum Eraclium mihi successorem volo. A populo
acclamatum est, Deo gratias, Christo laudes ; dictum est vicies
terties. Exaudi Christe, Augustino vita ; dictum est sexies decies.
Te patrem, te episcopum ; dictum est octies.' August. Ep. 213.
o Aj>ol. Ar. 45.
** Vid. Rom. xvi. 22. Lucian is spoken of as the amanuensis
of the Confessors, who wrote to S. Cyprian, Ep. 16. Ed. Ben.
Jader perhaps of Ep. 80. [E/>p. 23, 79, Hartel.] S. Jerome was
either secretary or amanuensis to Pope Damasus, vid. Ep. ad
AgerHch. (123. n. 10. Ed. Vallars.) vid. Lami de Erud. Aj>, p. 258.
you will reign most securely, for holy Scripture
says, ' Mercy and truth preserve the king, and
they will encircle his throne in righteousness?.'
And the wise Zorobabel gained a victory over
the others by setting forth the power of Truth,
and all the people cried out, ' Great is the
truth, and mighty above all things ^.'
12. Truth the defence of Thrones.
Had I been accused before any other, I
should have appealed to your Piety ; as once
the Apostle appealed unto Caesar, and put
an end to the designs of his enemies against
him. But since they have had the boldness
to lay their charge before you, to whom shall I
appeal from you ? to the Father of Him who
says, 'I am the Truths,' that He may incline
your heart into clemency : —
O Lord Almighty, and King of eternity, the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by Thy
Word hast given this Kingdom to Thy servant
Constantius ; do Thou shine into his heart,
that he, knowing the falsehood that is set
against me, may both favourably receive this
my defence ; and may make known unto all
men, that his ears are firmly set to hearken
unto the Truth, according as it is written,
' Pvighteous lips alone are acceptable unto the
King ^°.' For Thou hast caused it to be said
by Solomon, that thus the throne of the king-
dom shall be established.
Wherefore at least enquire into this matter,
and let the accusers understand that your
desire is to learn the truth ; and see, whether
they will not shew their falsehood by their
very looks ; for the countenance is a test
of the conscience as it is written, ' A merry
heart maketh a cheerful countenance, but by
sorrow of the heart the spirit is broken '.'
Thus they who had conspired against Joseph*
were convicted by their own consciences ; and
the craft of Laban towards Jacob was shewn
in his countenances. And thus you see the
suspicious alarm of these persons, for they
fly and hide themselves ; but on our part
frankness in making our defence. And the
question between us is not one regarding
worldly wealth, but concerning the honour
of the Church. He that has been struck by
a stone, appUes to a physician; but sharper
than a stone are the strokes of calumny ; for
as Solomon has said, 'A false witness is a
maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow*,' and
its wounds Truth alone is able to cure ; and if
Truth be set at nought, they grow worse and
worse.
7 Prov. X3C. 28. 8 I Esdr. iv. 41. ' John xiv. 6.
10 Prov. xvi. 13, XXV. 5. * JProv. xv. i^;.
a Gen. xlii. 21 ; xxxi, 2. 3 Vid. Vit. Ant. § 67.
4 Prov. XXV. 18.
DEFENCE BEFORE CONSTANTIUS.
243
13. This charge rests on forgery.
It is this that has thrown the Churches every-
where into such confusion ; for pretences have
been devised, and Biahops of great authority,
and of advanced age s, have been banislied for
holding communion with me. And if matters
had stopped here, our prospect would be favour-
able through your gracious interposition. But
that the evil may not extend itself, let Truth
prevail before you ; and leave not every Church
under suspicion, as though Christian men, nay
even Bishops, could be guilty of plotting and
writing in this manner. Or if you are unwilling
to investigate the matter, it is but right that
we who offer our defence, should be believed,
rather than our calumniators. They, like ene-
mies, are occupied in wickedness ; we, as earn-
estly contending for our cause, present to you
our proofs. And truly I wonder how it comes
to pass, that while we address you with fear
and reverence, they are possessed of such an
impudent spirit, that they dare even to lie be-
fore the Emperor. But I pray you, for the
Truth's sake, and as it is written s*, ' search dili-
gently' in my presence, on what grounds they
affirm these things, and whence these letters
were obtained. But neither will any of my
servants be proved guilty, nor will any of his
people be able to tell whence they came ; for
they are forgeries. And perhaps one had
better not enquire further. They do not wish
it, lest the writer of the letters should be cer-
tain of detection. For the calumniators alone,
and none besides, know who he is.
14. The third charge, of using an undedicated
Church.
But forasmuch as they have informed against
tne in the matter of the great Church s'', that
a communion was holden there before it was
completed, I will answer to your Piety on this
charge also ; for the parties who are hostile
towards me constrain me to do so. I con-
fess this did so happen ; for, as in what I
have hitherto said, 1 have spoken no lie, I will
not now deny this. But the facts are far
otherwise than they have represented them.
Suffer me to declare to you, most religious
Augustus, that we kept no day of dedication
(it would certainly have been unlawful to do
so, before receiving orders from you), nor were
we led to act as we did through premeditation.
No Bishop or other Clergyman was invited to
join in our proceedings ; for much was yet
wanting to complete the building. Nay the
congregation was not held on a previous notice,
5 Hist. Arian. 72, &c. 5« Joel i. 7, LXX.
S** [In the Csesareum, see Hist. Ar. 55, and J'est. Ind. xxxviii.
xl. It had been begun by Gregory, and was built at the expense
■of Constantius (/»//r. end of § 18).]
which might give them a reason for informing
against us. Every one knows how it happened ;
hear me, however, with your accustomed equity
and patience. It was the feast of Easter ^c^
and the multitude assembled together was ex-
ceeding great, such as Christian kings would
desire to see in all their cities. Now when
the Churches were found to be too i^'^ to
contain them, there was no little stir among
the people, who desired that they might be
allowed to meet together in the great Church,
where they could all offer up their prayers for
your safety. And this they did; for although
I exhorted them to wait awhile, and to hold
service in the other Churches, with whatever
inconvenience to themselves, they would not
listen to me ; but were ready to go out of the
city, and meet in desert places in the open air,
thinking it better to ^ndure the fatigue of the
journey, than to keep the feast in such a state
of discomfort.
15. Want of room the cause ^_ precedent the
justification.
Believe me, Sire, and let Truth be my wit-
ness in this also, when I declare that in the
congregations held during the season of Lent,
in consequence of the narrow limits of the
places, and the vast multitude of people as-
sembled, a great number of children, not
a few of the younger and very many of tlie
older women, besides several young men, suf-
fered so much from the pressure of the crowd,
that they were obliged to be carried home \
though by the Providence of God, no one
is dead. All however murmured, and de-
manded the use of the great Church. And if
the pressure was so great during the days which
preceded the feast, what would have been the
case during the feast itself? Of course matters
would have been far worse. It did not there-
fore become me to change the people's joy
into grief, their cheerfulness into sorrow, and
to make the festival a season of lamentation.
And that the more, because I had a pre-
cedent in the conduct of our Fathers. For
the blessed Alexander, when the other places
were too small, and he was engaged in the
erection of what was then considered a very
large one, the Church of Theonas^, held
5« A.D. 355.
6 S. Epiphanius mentions nine Churches in Alexandria. Ha-r.
69. 2. Athan. mentions in addition that of Quirinus. Hist. Arian,
§ 10. [See the plan of Larsow, appended to his Fcst-bricfe.'\ The
Church mentioned in the text was built at the Emperor's expense ;
and apparently upon the Emperor's ground, as on the site was or
had l)een a Basilica, which bore first the name of Hadrian, then
of Licinius, Epiph. ibid. Hadrian had built in many cities temples
without idols, which were popularly considered as intended by him
for Christian worship, and went after his name. Lamprid. \'it,
Alex. Sev. 43. The Church in question was built in the Ca;ia-
reum. Hist. Arian. -j^. There was a magnificent Temple, dedU
cated to Augustus, as e7ri|3aT7ipi55, on the harbour of Alexandria,
Philon. Legat. ad Caiuin, pp. 1013, 4. ed. 1691, and called the
R 2
244
APOLOGIA AD CONSTANTIUM.
his congregations there on account of the
number of the people, while at the same time
he proceeded with the building. I have seen
the same thing done at Treveri and at Aquileia,
in both which places, while the building was
proceeding, they assembled there during the
feasts, on account of the number of the people ;
and they never found any one to accuse them
in this manner. Nay, your brother of blessed
memory was present, when a communion was
held under these circum.stances at Aquileia.
I also followed this course. There was no
dedication, but only a service of prayer. You,
at least I am sure, as a lover of God will ap-
prove of the people's zeal, and will pardon me
for being unwilling to hinder the prayers of so
great a multitude.
1 6. Better to pray together than separately.
But here again I would ask my accuser,
where was it right that the people should
pray ? in the deserts, or in a place which was in
course of building for the purpose of prayer ?
Where was it becoming and pious that the
people should answer. Amen 7 ? in the deserts,
or in what was already called the Lord's
house? Where would you, most religious
Prince, have wished your people to stretch
forth their hands, and to pray for you ? Where
Greeks, as they passed by, might stop and
hsten, or in a place named after yourself,
which all men have long called the Lord's
house, even since the foundations of it were
laid? I am sure that you prefer your own
place; for you smile, and that tells me so.
' But,' says the acrnser, ' it ought to have
been in the Churches.' They were all, as I
said before, too small and confined to admit
the multitude. Then again, in which way
was it most becoming that their prayers should
be made ? Should they meet together in parts
and separate companies, with danger from the
crowded state of the congregation ? or, when
there was now a place that would contain them
all, should they assemble in it, and speak as
with one and the same voice in perfect har-
mony ? This was the better course, for this
shewed the unanimity of the multitude : in this
way God will readily hear prayer. For if,
according to the promise of our Saviour Him-
self^, where two shall agree together as touch-
ing anything that they shall ask, it shall be
done for them, how shall it be when so great
an assembly of people with one voice utter
their Amen to God ? Who indeed was there
Caesareum. It was near the Emperor's palace, vid. Acad. des.
Inscript. vol. 9. p. 416. [Vid. supr. note s"", and cf. Apol. de
Fuga 24.]
7 Bingham, Antiqu. xv. 3. §25. [D.C.A. 75.] Suicer, Thesaur.
in voc- a/jLTiv, Gavanti, Tiiesaur. vol. i. p. 89. ed. 1763.
6 Matt, xviii. 19.
that did not marvel at the sight? Who but
pronounced you happy when they saw so great
a multitude met together in one place? How
did the people themselves rejoice to see each
other, having been accustomed heretofore to
assemble in separate places ! The circum-
stance was a source of pleasure to all ; of vex-
ation to the calumniator alone.
17. Better to pray in a building than in
the desert.
Now then, I would also meet the other and
only remaining objection of my accuser. He
says, the building was not completed, and
prayer ought not to have been made there.
But the Lord said, ' But thou, when thou
prayest, enter into thy closet, and shut the
door 9.' What then will the accuser answer?
or rather what will all prudent and true Chris-
tians say? Let your Majesty ask the opinion
of such : for it is written of the other, ' The
foolish person will speak foolishness '°;' but of
these, ' Ask counsel of all that are wise '.'
When the Churches were too small, and the
people so numerous as they were, and desirous
to go forth into the deserts, what ought I to
have done? The desert has no doors, and all
who choose may pass through it, but the
Lord's house is enclosed with walls and doors,
and marks the difference between the pious
and the profane. Will not every wise person
then, as well as your Piety, Sire, give the pre-
ference to the latter place? For they know
that here prayer is lawfully offered, while a
suspicion of irregularity attaches to it there.
Unless indeed no place proper for it existed,
and the worshippers dwelt only in the desert,
as was the case with Israel ; although after
the tabernacle was built, they also had thence-
forth a place set apart for prayer. O Christ,
Lord and true King of kings. Only-begotten
Son of God, Word and Wisdom of the Father,
I am accused because the people prayed Thy
gracious favour, and through Thee besought
Thy Father, who is God over all, to save
Thy servant, the most religious Constantius.
But thanks be to Thy goodness, that it is for this
that I am blamed, and for the keeping of Thy
laws. Heavier had been the blame, and more
true had been the charge, had we passed by
the place which the Emperor was building,
and gone forth into the desert to pray. How
would the accuser then have vented his folly !
With what apparent reason would he have
said, * He despised the place which you are
building ; he does not approve of your un-
dertaking ; he passed it by in derision ; he
pointed to the desert to supply the want of
9 Matt. vi. 6.
«> Is. xxxii. 6. Sept.
» Tob. iv. 18.
DEFENCE BEFORE CONSTANTIUS.
245
room ; he prevented the people when they
wished to offer up their prayers.' This is what
he wished to say, and sought an occasion of
saying it ; and finding none he is vexed, and so
forthwith invents a charge against me. Had he
been able to say this, he would have confounded
me with shame ; as now he injures me, copying
the accuser's ways, and watching for an occasion
against those that pray. Thus has he perverted
to a wicked purpose his knowledge of Daniel's *
history. But he has been deceived ; for he ig-
norantly imagined, that Babylonian practices
were in fashion with you, and knew not that
you are a friend of the blessed Daniel, and
worship the same God, and do not forbid, but
wish all men to pray, knowing that the prayer
of all is, that you may continue to reign in per-
petual peace and safety.
18. Prayers first do not interfere with
dedication aftenvards.
This is what I have to complain of on the
part of my accuser. But may you, most reli-
gious Augustus, live through the course of many
years to come, and celebrate the dedication of
the Church. Surely the prayers which have been
offered for your safety by all men, are no hind-
rance to this celebration. Let these unlearned
persons cease such misrepresentations, but let
them learn from the example of the Fathers ;
and let them read the Scriptures. Or rather let
them learn of you, who are so well instructed
in such histories, how that Joshua the son of
Josedek the priest, and his brethren, and Zoro-
babel the wise, the son of Salathiel, and Ezra
the priest and scribe of the law, when the
temple was in course of building after the cap-
tivity, the feast of tabernacles being at hand
(which was a great feasl and time of assembly
and prayer in Israel), gathered 3 the people
together with one accord in the great court
within the first gate, which is toward the East,
and prepared the altar to God, and there offered
their gifts, and kept the feast. And so after-
wards they brought hither their sacrifices, on the
sabbaths and the new moons, and the people
offered up their prayers. And yet the Scripture
says expressly, that when these things were
done, the temple of God was not yet built ; but
rather while they thus prayed, the building of
the house was advancing. So that neither
were their prayers deferred in expectation of
the dedication, nor was the dedication pre-
vented by the assemblies held for the sake of
prayer. But the people thus continued to
pray ; and when the house was entirely finish-
ed, they celebrated the dedication, and brought
their gifts for that purpose, and all kept the
feast for the completion of the work. And
thus also have the blessed Alexander, and
the other Fathers done. They continued to
assemble their people, and when they had
completed the work they gave thanks unto the
Lord, and celebrated the dedication. This
also it befits you to do, O Prince, most careful
in your inquiries. The place is ready, having
been already sanctified by the prayers which
have been offered in it, and requires only the
presence of your Piety. This only is wanting
to its perfect beauty. Do you then supply this
deficiency, and there make your prayers unto
the Lord, for whom you have built this house.
That you may do so is the prayer of all men.
19. Fourth charge, of having disobeyed an
Imperial order.
And now, if it please you, let us consider
the remaining accusation, and permit me to
answer it likewise. They have dared to charge
me with resisting your commands, and refusing
to leave my Church. Truly I wonder they
are not weary of uttering their calumnies ; I
however am not yet weary of answering them,
I rather rejoice to do so ; for the more abund-
ant my defence is, the more entirely must they
be condemned. I did not resist the com-
mands of your Piety, God forbid ; I am not
a man that would resist even the Quaestor 3a
of the city, much less so great a Prince. On
this matter I need not many words, for the
whole city will bear witness for me. Never-
theless, permit me again to relate the cir-
cumstances from the beginning ; for when you
hear them, I am sure you will be astonished
at the presumption of my enemies. Mon-
tanus, the officer of the Palace '^, came and
brought me a letter, which purported to be
an answer to one from me, requesting that
I might go into Italy, for the purpose of
obtaining a supply of the deficiencies which
I thought existed in the condition of our
Churches. Now I desire to thank your Piety,
which condescended to assent to my request, on
the supposition that I had written to you, and
has made provision s for me to undertake the
journey, and to accompHsh it without trouble.
But here again I am astonished at those who
have spoken falsehood in your ears, that they
were not afraid, seeing that lying belongs to
the Devil, and that liars are alien from Him
who says, ' I am the Truth ^.' For I never
wrote to you, nor will my accuser be able
to find any such letter; and though I ought
to have written every day, if I might thereby
» Dan. vi. ii.
3 Ezr. iii. 6 ; Neh. viii.
3* Ao7c<rr)j, auditor of accounts? vid. Demosth. de Corona,
p. 290. ed. 1823. Arist. Polit. vi. 8.
4 Vid. Cod. Theod. vi. 30 [summer of 353 A.D. Prolegg. ch. ii.
} 7 fin.]
5 A^ol. Ar. 70, note 5. * John xiv. 6.
246
APOLOGIA AD CONSTANTIUM.
behold your gracious countenance, yet it
would neither have been pious to desert the
Churches, nor right to be troublesome to
your Piety, especially since you are willing
to grant our requests in behalf of the Church,
although we are not present to make them.
Now may it please you to order me to read
what Montanus commanded me to do. This
is as follows?. * * *
20. History of his disobeying it.
Now I ask again, whence have my accusers
obtained this letter also ? I would learn of
them who it was that put it into their hands ?
Do you cause them to answer. By this you
may perceive that they have forged this, as they
spread abroad also the former letter, which they
published against me, with reference to the
ill-named Magnentius. And being convicted
in this instance also, on what pretence next
will they bring me to make my defence?
Their only concern is, to throw everything
into disorder and confusion ; and for this end
I perceive they exercise their zeal. Perhaps
they think that by frequent repetition of their
charges, they will at last exasperate you against
me. But you ought to turn away from such
persons, and to hate them ; for such as them-
selves are, such also they imagine those to be
who listen to them ; and they think that their
calumnies will prevail even before you. The
accusation of Doeg^ prevailed of old against
the priests of God : but it was the unrighteous
Saul, who hearkened unto him. And Jezebel
was able to injure the most religious Naboth?
by her false accusations ; but then it was the
wicked and apostate Ahab who hearkened
unto her. But the most holy David, whose
example it becomes you to follow, as all pray
that you may, favours not such men, but was
wont to turn away from them and avoid
them, as raging dogs. He says, 'Whoso privily
slandereth his neighbour, him will I destroy'".'
For he kept the commandment which says,
' Thou shalt not receive a false report".' And
false are the reports of these men in your
sight. You, like Solomon, have required of
the Lord (and you ought to believe yourself to
have obtained your desire), that it would seem
good unto Him to remove far from you vain
and lying words '^
21. Forasmuch then as the letter owed its
origin to a false story, and contained no order
that I should come to you, I concluded that
it was not the wish of your Piety that I should
come. For in that you gave me no absolute
command, but merely wrote as in answer to
7 Lost, or never intxoduced.
8 1 Sam. xxii. 9. 9 i Kings xxi. 10.
" Ex. xxiii. I. '2 Prov. xxx. 8
10 Ps. ci. 5.
a letter from me, requesting that I might be
permitted to set in order the things which
seemed to be wanting, it was manifest to me
(although no one told me this) that the letter
which I had received did not express the
sentiments of your Clemency. All knew, and
I also stated in writing, as Montanus is aware,
that I did not refuse to come, but only that
I thought it unbecoming to take advantage of
the supposition that I had written to you to
request this favour, fearing also lest the false ac-
cusers should find in this a pretence for saying
that I made myself troublesome to your Piety.
Nevertheless, I made preparations, as Mon-
tanus also knows, in order that, should you
condescend to write to me, I might imme-
diately leave home, and readily answer your
commands ; for I was not so mad as to resist
such an order from you. When then in fact
your Piety did not write to me, how could
I resist a command which I never received ?
or how can they say that I refused to obey,
when no orders were given me ? Is not this
again the mere fabrication of enemies, pre-
tending that which never took place? I fear
that even now, while I am engaged in this
defence of myself, they may allege against me
that I am doing that which I have never
obtained your permission to do. So easily
is my conduct made matter of accusation
by them, and so ready are they to vent their
calumnies in despite of that Scripture, which
says, * Love not to slander another, lest thou
be cut off'.'
22. Arrivals of Diogenes and of Syrianus.
After a period of six and twenty months,
when Montanus had gone away, there came
Diogenes the Notary^; but he brought me no
letter, nor did we see each other, nor did he
charge me with any commands as from you.
Moreover when the General Syrianus entered
Alexandria 3, seeing that certain reports were
spread abroad by the Arians, who declared
that matters would now be as they wished,
I enquired whether he had brought any letters
on the subject of these statements of theirs. I
confess that I asked for letters containing your
commands. And when he said that he had
brought none, I requested that Syrianus him-
self, or Maximus the Prefect of Egypt, would
write to me concerning this matter. Which re-
quest I made, because your Grace has written
' Prov. XX. 13, LXX.
2 [August, 355 A.D. See Hist. Aceph. iii. Fest- Ind. xxv.,
xxvii.] Notaries were the immediate attendants on magistrates,
whose judgments, &c.j they recorded and promulgated. Their
office was analogous u\ the Imperial Court, vid. Gothofred iu
Cod. Theod. VI. x. Ammian. Marcell. torn. 3. p. 464. ed. Erftirt,
1808. Pancirol. iV^!7/jV. p.143. Hofman z« »oc. Scharl enumerates
virith references the civil officers, &c., to whom they were attached
in Dissert, i, de Notariis Ecclesice, p. 49.
3 [Jan. 5, 356.]
DEFENCE BEFORE CONSTANTIUS.
247
to me, desiring that I would not suffer myself
to be alarmed by any one, nor attend to those
who wished to frighten me, but that I would
continue to reside in the Churches without
fear. It was Palladius, the Master of the
Palace, and Asterius, formerly Duke of Ar-
menia, who brought me this letter. Permit
me to read a copy of it. It is as follows :
23. A copy 4 of the letter as follows :
Constantius Victor Augustus to Athanasiuss.
It is not unknown to your Prudence, how
constantly I prayed that success might attend
my late brother Constans m all his under-
takings, and your wisdom will easily judge
how greatly I was afflicted, when I learnt that
he had been cut off by the treachery of
villains. Now forasmuch as certain persons
are endeavouring at this time to alarm you,
by setting before your eyes that lamentable
tragedy, I have thought good to address to
your Reverence this present letter, to exhort
you, that, as becomes a Bishop, you would
teach the people to conform to the established^
religion, and, according to your custom, give
yourself up to prayer together with them. For
this is agreeable to our wishes ; and our desire
is, that you should at every season be a Bishop
in your own place.
And in another hand : — May divine Pro-
vidence preserve you, beloved Father, many
years.
24. JVAy Athanasius did not obey the
Imperial Order.
On the subject of this letter, my opponents
conferred with the magistrates. And was it
not reasonable that I, having received it, should
demand their letters, and refuse to give heed
to mere pretences ? And were they not acting
in direct contradiction to the tenor of your
instructions to me, while they failed to shew
me the commands of your Piety? I therefore,
seeing they produced no letters from you,
considered it improbable that a mere verbal
communication should be made to them, es-
pecially as the letter of your Grace had charged
me not to give ear to such persons. I acted
rightly then, most religious Augustus, that
as I had returned to my country under the
authority of your letters, so I should only
leave it by your command; and might not
render myself liable hereafter to a charge of
having deserted the Church, but as receiving
your order might have a reason for my re-
tiring. This was demanded for me by all
my people, who went to Syrianus together
■* Vid. another translation of the Latin, Hist. Arian. % 34.
S Spring of 350.
*«XP«"<''T1fi.«V>)v vid. (fpnTOUfrr; wt'trTei, infr. § 31.
with the Presbyters, and the greatest part,
to say the least, of the city with them. Maxi-
mus, the Prefect of Egypt, was also there : and
their request was that either he would send
me a declaration of your wishes in writing,
or would forbear to disturb the Churches,
while the people themselves were sending
a deputation to you respecting the matter.
When they persisted in their demand, Syrianus
at last perceived the reasonableness of it, and
consented, protesting by your safety (Hilary
was present and witnessed this) that he would
put an end to the disturbance, and refer the
case to your Piety. The guards of the Duke,
as well as those of the Prefect of Egypt, know
that this is true; the Prytanis ? of the city
also remembers the words ; so that you will
perceive that neither I, nor any one else,
resisted your commands.
25. The irruption of Syrianus.
All demanded that the letters of your Piety
should be exhibited. For although the bare
word of a King is of equal weight and au-
thority with his written command, especially
if he who reports it, boldly affirms in writing
that it has been given him ; yet when they
neither openly declared that they had received
any command, nor, as they were requested to
do, gave me assurance of it in writing, but
acted altogether as by their own authority;
I confess, I say it boldly, I was suspicious
of them. For there were many Arians about
them, who were their companions at table, and
their counsellors; and while they attempted
nothing openly, they were preparing to assail
me by stratagem and treachery. Nor did they
act at all as under the authority of a royal
command, but, as their conduct betrayed, at
the solicitation of enemies. This made me
demand more urgently that they should pro-
duce letters from you, seeing that all their un-
dertakings and designs were of a suspicious
nature ; and because it was unseemly that
after I had entered the Church, under the
•authority of so many letters from you, I
should retire from it without such a sanction.
When however Syrianus gave his promise,
all the people assembled together in the
Churches with feelings of joyfulness and
security. But three and twenty days after ^,
he burst into the Church with his soldiers,
while we were engaged in our usual services,
as those who entered in there witnessed; for
it was a vigil, preparatory to a communion
on the morrow. And such things were done
that night as the Arians desired and had
beforehand denounced against us. For the
7 The Mayor, Tillem. vol. viii. p. 152.
8 [Feb. 8, 356 : cf. Afol. Fug. 24.]
248
APOLOGIA AD CONSTANTIUM.
General brought them with him ; and they
were the instigators and advisers of the attack.
This is no incredible story of mine, most re-
ligious Augustus; for it was not done in secret,
but was noised abroad everywhere. When
therefore I saw the assault begun, I first
exhorted the people to retire, and then with-
drew myself after them, God hiding and guid-
ing me, as those who were with me at the
time witness. Since then, I have remained
by myself, though I have all confidence to
answer for my conduct, in the first place
before God, and also before your Piety, for
that I did not flee and desert my people, but
can point to the attack of the General upon
us, as a proof of persecution. His proceedings
have caused the greatest astonishment among
all men ; for either he ought not to have made
a promise, or not to have broken it after he
had made it.
26. Hoiv Athanastus acted when this took
place.
Now why did they form this plot against
me, and treacherously lay an ambush to take
me, when it was in their power to enforce
the order by a written declaration ? The com-
mand of an Emperor is wont to give great
boldness to those entrusted with it; but their
desire to act secretly made the suspicion
stronger that they had received no command.
And did I require anything so very absurd ?
Let your Majesty's candour decide. Will
not every one say, that such a demand was
reasonable for a Bishop to make ? You know,
for you" have read the Scriptures, how great an
offence it is for a Bishop to desert his Church,
and to neglect the flocks of God. For the
absence of the Shepherd gives the wolves
an opportunity to attack the sheep. And
this was what the Arians and all the other
heretics desired, that during my absence they
might find an opportunity to entrap the peo-
ple into impiety. If then I had fled, what
defence could I have made before the true
Bishops? or rather before Him Who has
committed to me His flock? He it is Who
judges the whole earth, the true King of all,
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Would not every one have rightly charged
me with neglect of my people? Would not
your Piety have blamed me, and have justly
asked, 'After you had returned under the
authority of our letters, why did you with-
draw without such authority, and desert your
people?' Would not the people themselves
at the day of judgment have reasonably im-
puted to me this neglect of them, and have
said, *He that had the oversight of us fled,
and we were neglected, there being no one to
put us in mind of our duty?' When they
said this, what could I have answered ? Such
a complaint was made by Ezekiel against
the Pastors of old 9; and the blessed Apostle
Paul, knowing this, has charged every one
of us through his disciple, saying, * Neglect
not the gift that is in thee, which was given
thee, with the laying on of the hands of the
presbytery '°.' Fearing this, I wished not to
flee, but to receive your commands, if indeed
such was the will of your Piety. But I never
obtained what I so reasonably requested, and
now I am falsely accused before you ; for I
resisted no commands of your Piety ; nor will
I now attempt to return to Alexandria, until
your Grace shall desire it. This I say before-
hand, lest the slanderers should again make
this a pretence for accusing me.
27. Atha?iasius leaves Alexandria to go to
Constaniius, but is stopped by the news 0/
the banishment of the Bishops.
Observing these things, I did not give sen-
tence against myself, but hastened to come
to your Piety, with this my defence, knowing
your goodness, and remembering your faithful
promises, and being confident that, as it is
written in the divine Proverbs, ' Just speeches
are acceptable to a gracious king '.' But
when I had already entered upon my journey,
and had passed through the desert ''^ a report
suddenly reached me% which at first I thought
to be incredible, but which afterwards proved
to be true. It was rumoured everywhere that
Liberius, Bishop of Rome, the great Hosius
of Spain, Paulinus of Gaul, Dionysius and
Eusebius of Italy, Lucifer of Sardinia, and
certain other Bisliops and Presbyters and
Deacons, had been banished 3 because they
refused to subscribe to my condemnation.
These had been banished : and Vincentius
of Capua, Fortunatian of Aquileia, Heremius
of Thessalonica, and all the Bishops of the
West, were treated with no ordinary force, nay
were suffering extreme violence and grievous
injuries, until they could be induced to pro-
mise that they would not communicate with
me. While I was astonished and perplexed at
these tidings, behold another report^ overtook
me, respecting them of Egypt and Libya, that
nearly ninety Bishops had been under perse-
cution, and that their Churches were given up
to the professors of Arianism ; that sixteen
had been banished, and of the rest, some had
9 Ez. xxxiv. 2, &c. '0 I Tim. iv. 14.
' Prov. xvi. 13. quoted otherwise, supr. § 12.
" [Probably the Libyan desert, as Const, was now in Italy.]
2 In this chapter he breaks off his Oratorical form, and ends his
Apology much more in the form of a letter, vid. however TiK Xdyuv
Kaipdi', infr. §§ 34, 35 init. 7rpo<r(^a>i'T)(r(o, § 35.
3 Council of iVIilan 355, see Apol. Fug. 5.
8 Vid. Hist. Ar. §§ 31, 32, 54, 70, &c. [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 8 (i).]
i
DEFENCE BEFORE CONSTANTIUS.
249
fled, and others were constrained to dissemble.
For the persecution was said to be so violent
in those parts, that at Alexandria, while the
brethren were praying during Easter and on
the Lord's days in a desert place near the
cemetery, the General came upon them with
a force of soldiery, more than three thousand
in number, with arms, drawn swords, and
spears ; whereupon outrages, such as might
be expected to follow so unprovoked an at-
tack, were committed against women and
children, who were doing nothing more than
praying to God. It would perhaps be un-
seasonable to give an account of them now,
lest the mere mention of such enormities
should move us all to tears. But such was
their cruelty, that virgins were stripped, and
even the bodies of those who died from the
blows they received were not immediately
given up for burial, but were cast out to the
dogs, until their relatives, with great risk to
themselves, came secretly and stole them
away, and much effort was necessary, that
np one might know it.
28. The news of the intrusion of George.
The rest of their proceedings will perhaps
be thought incretiible, and will fill all men
with astonishment, by reason of their extreme
atrocity. It is necessary however to speak
of them, in order that your Christian zeal and
piety may perceive that their slanders and
calumnies against us are framed for no other
end, than that they may drive us out of the
Churches, and introduce their own impiety in
our place. For when the lawful Bishops, men
of advanced age, had some of them been
banished, and others forced to fly, heathens
and catechumens, those who hold the first
places in the senate, and men who are noto-
rious for their wealth, were straightway com-
missioned by the Arians to preach the holy
faith instead of Christians 9. And enquiry was
no longer made, as the Apostle enjoined,
'if any be blameless '° : ' but according to the
practice of the impious Jeroboam, he who
could give most money was named Bishop ;
and it made no difference to them, even if the
man happened to be a heathen, so long as he
furnished them with money. Those who had
been Bishops from the time of Alexander,
monks and ascetics, were banished : and men
practised only in calumny corrupted, as far as
in them lay, the Apostolic rule, and polluted
the Churches. Truly their false accusations
against us have gained them much, that they
should be able to commit iniquity, and to
do such things as these in your time ; so that
9 Hist Ar.% 73.
10 Tit. i. 8.
the words of Scripture may be applied to them,
' Woe unto those through whom My name
is blasphemed among the Gentiles^.'
29. Athanasius has heard of his own
proscription.
Such were the rumours that were noised
abroad ; and although everything was thus
turned upside down, I still did not relinquish
my earnest desire of coming to your Piety,
but was again setting forward on my journey.
And I did so the more eagerly, being con-
fident that these proceedings were contrary to
your wishes, and that if your Grace should be
informed of what was done, you would prevent
it for the time to come. For I could not
think that a righteous king could wish Bishops
to be banished, and virgins to be stripped, or
the Churches to be in any way disturbed.
While I thus reasoned and hastened on my
journey, behold a third report reached me,
to the effect that letters had been written to
the Princes of Auxumis, desiring that Frumen-
tius% Bishop of Auxumis, should be brought
from thence, and that search should be made
for me even as far as the country of the Bar-
barians, that I might be handed over to the
Commentaries 3 (as they are called) of the
Prefects, and that all the laity and clergy
should be compelled to communicate with
the Arian heresy, and that such as would not
comply with this order should be put to death.
To shew that these were not merely idle
rumours, but that they were confirmed by
facts, since your Grace has given me leave,
I produce the letter. My enemies were con-
stantly reading it, and threatening each one
with death.
30. A copy of the letter of Constantius
against Athanasius.
Victor Constantius Maximus Augustus to
the Alexandrians.
Your city, preserving its national character,
and remembering the virtue of its founders,
has habitually shewn itself obedient unto us,
as it does at this day ; and we on our part
should consider ourselves greatly wanting in
our duty, did not our good will eclipse even
that of Alexander himself. For as it belongs
to a temperate mind, to behave itself orderly
in all respects, so it is the part of royalty, on
account of virtue, permit me to say, such as
yours, to embrace you above all others ; you,
I Rom. ii. 24. » [Prolegg. ch. ii. §§ 4, 7, 8 (i).]
3 That is, the prison. ' The official books,' Montfaucon (ap-
parently) in Onomast. vid. Gothofr. Cod. Theod. ix. 3. i. 5. How-
ever, in ix. 30. p. 243. he says, Malim pro ipsa custodia accipere.
And'so Du Cange in voc, and this meaning is here followed, vid.
supr. Apol. contr. Arian. % 8, where commentarius is translated
'jaUor.'
250
APOLOGIA AD CONSTANTIUM.
who rose up as the first teachers of wisdom ;
who were the first to acknowledges* God;
who moreover have chosen for yourselves
the most consummate masters ; and have
cordially acquiesced in our opinion, justly
abominating that impostor and cheat, and
dutifully uniting yourselves to those vener-
able men who are beyond all admiration.
And yet, who is ignorant, even among those
who live in the ends of the earth, what violent
party spirit was displayed in the late proceed-
ings ? with which we know not anything that
has ever happened, worthy to be compared.
The majority of the citizens had their eyes
blinded, and a man who had come forth from
the lowest dens of infamy obtained authority
among them, entrapping into falsehood, as
under cover of darkness, those who were
desirous to know the truth ; — one who never
provided for them any fruitful and edifying
discourse, but corrupted their minds with un-
profitable subtleties. His flatterers shouted
and applauded him ; they were astonished at
his powers, and they still probably murmur
secretly; while the majority of the more simple
sort took their cue from them. And thus all
went with the stream, as if a flood had broken
in, while everything was entirely neglected.
One of the multitude was in power ; — how can
I describe him more truly than by saying,
that he was superior in nothing to the meanest
of the people, and that the only kindness
which he shewed to the city was, that he did
not thrust her citizens down into the pit. This
noble-minded and illustrious person did not
wait for judgment to proceed against him, but
sentenced himself to banishment, as he de-
served. So that now it is for the interest of
the Barbarians to remove him out of the way,
lest he lead some of them into impiety, for he
will make his complaint, like distressed cha-
racters in a play, to those who first fall in with
him. To him however we will now bid a long
farewell. For yourselves there are few with
whom I can compare you : I am bound rather
to honour you separately above all others,
for the great virtue and wisdom which your
actions, that are celebrated almost through the
whole world, proclaim you to possess. Go
on in this sober course. I would gladly have
repeated to me a description of your conduct
in such terms of praise as it deserves; O you
who have eclipsed your predecessors in the
race of glory, and will be a noble example
both to those who are now alive, and to all
who shall come after, and alone have chosen
for yourselves the most perfect of beings as
guide for your conduct, both in word and
deed, and hesitated not a moment, but marl-
s' On the reading, cf. infr. note 6.
fully transferred your afiiections, and gave
yourselves up to the other side, leaving those
grovelling 4 and earthly teachers, and stretching
forth towards heavenly things, under the guid-
ance of the most venerable Georges, than
whom no man is more perfectly instructed
therein. Under him you will continue to
have a good hope respecting the future life,
and will pass your time in this present world,
in rest and quietness. Would that all the
citizens together would lay hold on his words,
as a sacred anchor, so that we might need nei-
ther knife nor cautery for those whose souls
are diseased ! Such persons we most earnestly
advise to renounce their zeal in favour of Atha-
nasius, and not even to remember the fooUsh
things which he spoke so plentifully among
them. Otherwise they will bring themselves
before they are aware into extreme peril, from
which we know not any one who will be skilful
enough to deliver such factious persons. For
while that pestilent fellow Athanasius is driven
from place to place, being convicted of the
basest crimes, for which he would only suffer
the punishment he deserves, if one were to
kill him ten times over, it would be incon-
sistent in us to suffer those flatterers and
juggling ministers of his to exult against us :
men of such a character as it is a shame even
to speak of, respecting whom orders have
long ago been given to the magistrates, that
they should be put to death. But even
now perhaps they shall not die, if they desist
from their former offences, and repent at last.
For that most pestilent fellow Athanasius led
them on, and corrupted the whole state, and
laid his impious and polluted hands upon the
most holy things.
31. Letter of Constantiiis to the Ethiopians
against Friu7ientius.
The following is the letter which was written
to the Princes of Auxumis respecting Frumen-
tius. Bishop of that place.
Constantius Victor Maximus Augustus, X.O
.^zanes and Sazanes.
It is altogether a matter of the greatest car
and concern to us, to extend the knowledge
of the supreme God ^ ; and I think that the
whole race of mankind claims from us equal
regard in this respect, in order that they may
pass their lives in hope, being brought to a
proper knowledge of God, and having no
4 Tutv xo-f'-"-^, 'vid- contr. Euseb. H.E, vii. 27.
5 Of Cappadocia, rf^ .S>«. 37, notes.
6 i\ Toil KfieirTovo'; ■yi'wtri;, vid. tov KpeiVrova, infr. And SO in
Arius's Thalia, the Eternal Father, in contrast to the Son, is called
6 KpeiTTui/, Toc KpeiTTova, de Synod. § 15. _ So again, Q^ov tov [oiral
orui/teVTas, supr. § 30, and awti^v 6eov in the Thalia, Oral. i. 5,
Again, o-o<^ias i^riyrjTas, supr. § 30. and riav <ro0tas fieraxovTiov,
Kara. navTa cro(/)(Of in the Thalia, ibid. And riSv e^ijyrjrwi' roiif
a/cpovs elAecfle, supr. § 30, and tovtwc kot' ixvoi fiKBov in the
Thalia.
DEFENCE BEFORE CONSTANTIUS.
251
differences with each other in their enquiries
concerning justice and truth. Wherefore con-
sidering that you are deserving of the same
provident care as the Romans, and desiring to
shew equal regard for your welfare, we com-
mand that the same doctrine be professed in
your Churches as in theirs. Send therefore
speedily into Egypt the Bishop Frumentius
to the most venerable Bishop George, and the
rest who are there, who have especial autho-
rity to appoint to these offices, and to decide
questions concerning them. For of course
you know and remember (unless you alone
pretend to be ignorant of that which all men
are well aware of) that this Frumentius was
advanced to his present rank by Athanasius,
a man who is guilty of ten thousand crimes;
for he has not been able fairly to clear him-
self of any of the charges brought against him,
but was at once deprived of his see, and now
wanders about destitute of any fixed abode,
and passes from one country to another, as if
by this means he could escape his own wicked-
ness. Now if Frumentius shall readily obey
our commands, and shall submit to an enquiry
into all the circumstances of his appointment,
he will shew plainly to all men, that he is in no
respect opposed to the laws of the Church and
the established ? faith. And being brought to
trial, when he shall have given proof of his
general good conduct, and submitted an ac-
count of his hfe to those who are to judge of
these things, he shall receive his appointment
from them, if it shall indeed appear that he
has any right to be a Bishop. But if he shall
delay and avoid the trial, it will surely be very
evident, that he has been induced by the per-
suasions of the wicked Athanasius, thus to
indulge impiety against God, choosing to fol-
low the course of him whose wickedness has
been made manifest. And our fear is lest he
should pass over into Auxumis and corrupt
your people, by setting before them accursed
and impious statements, and not only unsettle
and disturb the Churches, and blaspheme the
supreme God, but also thereby cause utter
overthrow and destruction to the several na-
tions whom he visits. --Sut I am sure that Fru-
mentius will return home, perfectly acquainted
with all matters that concern the Church, hav-
ing derived much instruction, which will be of
great and general utility, from the conversa-
tion of the most venerable George, and such
other of the Bishops, as are excellently quali-
fied to communicate such knowledge. May
God continually preserve you,- most honoured
brethren.
7 KpaTova-rj, supr. § 23, note 6.
32. He defends his Flight.
Hearing, nay almost seeing, these things,
through the mournful representations of the
messengers, I confess I turned back again into
the desert, justly concluding, as your Piety will
perceive, that if I was sought after, that I
might be sent as soon as I was discovered to
the Prefects^, I should be prevented from ever
coming to your Grace ; and that if those who
would not subscribe against me, suffered so
severely as they did, and the laity who refused
to communicate with the Arians were ordered
for death, there was no doubt at all but that
ten thousand new modes of destruction would
be devised by the calumniators against me ;
and that after my death, they would employ
against whomsoever they wished to injure,
whatever means they chose, venting their lies
against us the more boldly, for that then there
would no longer be any one left who could
expose them. I fled, not because I feared
your Piety (for I know your long-suffering and
goodness;, but because from what had taken
place, I perceived the spirit of my enemies, and
considered that they would make use of all
possible means to accomplish my destruction,
from fear that they would be brought to answer
for what they had done contrary to the inten-
tions of your Excellency. For observe, your
Grace commanded that the Bishops should be
expelled only out of the cities and the pro-
vince. But these worthy persons presumed to
exceed your commands, and banished aged
men and Bishops venerable for their years into
desert and unfrequented and frightful places,
beyond the boundaries of three provinces'.
Some of them were sent off from Libya to
the great Oasis ; others from the Thebais
to Ammoniaca in Libya ^°. Neither was it
from fear of death that I fled ; let none ot
them condemn me as guilty of cowardice ;
but because it is the injunction of our
Saviour^ that we should flee when we are
persecuted, and hide ourselves when we are
sought after, and not expose ourselves to
certain dangers, nor by appearing before our
persecutors inflame still more their rage against
us. For to give one's self up to one's enemies
to be murdered, is the same thing as to murder
one's self; but to flee, as our Saviour has
enjoined, is to know our time, and to manifest
a real concern for our persecutors, lest if they
proceed to the shedding of blood, they become
guilty of the transgression of the law, ' Thou
8 Supr. 8 29. . , . , .
9 E^ypt was divided into three Provinces till Hadrian s time,
Egypt °Libya, and Pentapolis ; Hadrian made them four ; Epipha-
nius speaks of them as seven. H^r. 68. i. _ By the time of Ar-
cadius they had become eight, vid. Orlendini Orhis Saceret Prof.
voK i. p- ii8- vid. supr. Encyc. § 3, n. 2, AJiol. Ar.% 83.
10 Hist.Ar. 72. ' Vid. ApoL de Fug. init. ; Matt. x. 23.
252
APOLOGIA AD CONSTANTIUM.
shalt not kill V And yet these men by their
calumnies against me, earnestly wish that I
should suffer death. What they have again
lately done proves that this is their desire and
murderous intention. You will be astonished,
I am sure, Augustus, most beloved of God,
when you hear it; it is indeed an outrage
worthy of amazement. What it is, I pray
you briefly to hear.
33. Conduct of the Arians towards the
consecrated Virgins.
The Son of God, our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, having become man for our sakes,
and having destroyed death, and delivered our
race from the bondage of corruption 3, in addi-
tion to all His other benefits bestowed this
also upon us, that we should possess upon
earth, in the state of virginity 3*, a picture of
the holiness of Angels. Accordingly such as
have attained this virtue, the Catholic Church
has been accustomed to call the brides of
Christ. And the heathen who see them express
their admiration of them as the temples of the
Word. For indeed this holy and heavenly
profession is nowhere '^^ established, but only
among us Christians, and it is a very strong
argument that with us is to be found the
genuine and true religion. Your most reli-
gious father Constantine Augustus, of blessed
memory, honoured the Virgins above all the
rest, and your Piety in several letters has
given them the titles of the honourable and
holy women. But now these worthy Arians
who have slandered me, and by whom con-
spiracies have been formed against most of the
Bishops, having obtained the consent and co-
operation of the magistrates, first stripped them,
and then caused them to be suspended upon
what are called the Hermetaries'^, and scourged
them on the ribs so severely three several
times, that not even real malefactors have ever
suffered the like. Pilate, to gratify the Jews
of old, pierced one of our Saviour's sides with
a spear. These men have exceeded the mad-
ness of Pilate, for they have scourged not one
but both His sides ; for the limbs of the Virgins
are in an especial manner the Saviour's own.
All men shudder at hearing the bare recital
of deeds like these. These men alone not
only did not fear to strip and to scourge those
undefiled limbs, which the Virgins had dedica-
ted solely to our Saviour Christ ; but, what is
worse than all, when they were reproached by
every one for such extreme cruelty, instead of
a Exod. XX. 13. 33 Tim. i. lo ; Rom. viii. 21.
3» Cf. £f>. Fest. i. 3, Ep. ad Amun, also de Iiicar. 27, 48, SI-
S'' [Revillout (in the work quoted supr. p. 188), p. 479 sg.
States the contrary with regard to Egypt. He refers to the opening
of Plutarch's de Is. et Osir., also to Brunet de Presle Serapewn.\
4 A rack, or horse, Tillemont. vol. viii. p. 169.
manifesting any shame, they pretended that it
was commanded by your Piety. So utterly
presumptuous are they and full of wicked
thoughts and purposes. Such a deed as this
was never heard of in past persecutions s : or
supposing that it ever occurred before, yet
surely it was not befitting either that Virginity
should suffer such outrage and dishonour, in
the time of your Majesty, a Christian, or
that these men should impute to your Piety
their own cruelty. Such wickedness belongs
only to heretics, to blaspheme the Son of God,
and to do violence to His holy Virgins.
34. He expostulates with Constantius.
Now when such enormities as these were
again perpetrated by the Arians, I surely was
not wrong in complying with the direction of
Holy Scripture, which says, ' Hide thyself for
a little moment, until the wrath of the Lord be
overpast^.' This was another reason for my
withdrawing myself, Augustus, most beloved of
God; and I refused not, either todepart into the
desert, or, if need were, to be let down from a
wall in a basket?. I endured everything, I
even dwelt among wild beasts, that your favour
might return to me, waiting for an opportunity
to offer to you this my defence, confident as I
am that they will be condemned, and your
goodness manifested unto me. O, Augustus,
blessed and most beloved of God, what would
you have had me to do ? to come to you
while my calumniators were inflamed with
rage against me, and were seeking to kill me ;
or, as it is written, to hide myself a little,
that in the mean time they might be condem-
ned as heretics, and your goodness might be
manifested unto me ? or would you have had
me. Sire, to appear before your magistrates, in
order that though you had written merely in the
way of threatening, they not understanding
your intention, but being exasperated against
me by the Arians, might kill me on the author-
ity of your letters, and on that ground ascribe
the murder to you ? It would neither have
been becoming in me to surrender, and give
myself up that my blood might be shed, nor in
you, as a Christian King, to have the murder
of Christians, and those too Bishops, imputed
unto you.
35. It was therefore better for me to hide
myself, and to wait for this opportunity. Yes,
I am sure that from your knowledge of the
sacred Scriptures you will assent and approve
of my conduct in this respect. For you will
perceive that, now those who exasperated you
against us have been silenced, your righteous
clemency is apparent, and it is proved to all
S Vid. Hist. Ar. §§ 40, 64. « Is. xxvi. 20, LXX.
7 3 Cor. xi. 33.
DEFENCE BEFORE CONSTANTIUS.
253
men that you never persecuted the Christians
at all, but that it was they who made the
Churches desolate, that they might sow the
seeds of their own impiety everywhere ; on
account of which I also, had I not fled, should
long ago have suffered from their treachery.
For it is very evident that they who scrupled
not to utter such calumnies against me, before
the great Augustus, and who so violently
assailed Bishops and Virgins, sought also to
compass my death. But thanks be to the Lord
who has given you the kingdom. All men are
confirmed in their opinion of your goodness,
and of their wickedness, from which I fled at
the first, that I might now make this appeal
unto you, and that you might find some one
towards whom you may shew kindness. I
beseech you, therefore, forasmuch as it is
written, ' A soft answer turneth away wrath,'
and 'righteous thoughts are acceptable unto the
King^;' receive this my defence, and restore
all the Bishops and the rest of the Clergy to
their countries and their Churches ; so that
the wickedness of my accusers may be made
manifest, and that you, both now and in the
day of judgment, may have boldness to say to
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the King of
all, ' " None of Thine have I lost 9," but these
are they who designed the ruin of all, while I
was grieved for those who perished, and for
the Virgins who were scourged, and for all
other things that were committed against the
Christians ; and I brought back them that
were banished, and restored them to their own
Churches.*
8 Prov. XT. z ; xvi. 13. vid. § 27. note i. 9 John zviii. ^
APOLOGIA DE FUGA.
The date of this Defence of his Flight must be placed early enough to fall within the
lifetime, or very close to the death (§ i. n. i), of Leontius of Antioch, and late enough to
satisfy the references (§ 6) to the events at the end of May 357 (see notes there), and to the
lapse of Hosius, the exact date of which again depends upon that of the Sirmian Council of 357,
which, if held in the presence of Constantius, must have fallen as late as August (Gwatk. Stud. 157,
n. 3). Athanasius not only refers to the lapse of Hosius, but by the quotation he makes from
Gal. ii. 5, appears to know of its merely temporary nature (see D.C.B. iii. 173). How early,
then, does the first-named condition compel us to place the 'Defence?' Upon the news of
the death of Leontius reaching Italy (Soz. iv. 12), Eudoxius obtained the leave of Constantius
(who was in Italy, April 28 to July 3, 357, and again, Nov. 10 to Dec. 10, Gwatk. p. 292),
to repair to Antioch. There he got himself elected bishop, assembled a council (Acacius
and other Homoeans), and wrote a synodal letter, expelling from the Antiochene Church those
who dissented. Some of the latter repaired to Ancyra with a letter from the semi-Arian
George of Laodicea; at Ancyra, Basil assembled a small council (before Easter, April 12, 358,
see D.C.B. i. 281, Epiph. Hcer. 73), which wrote to the Emperor protesting against the
proceedings of Eudoxius. To gain room for these events, at the very least five months, and
probably more, must be allowed to elapse between the death of Leontius and April 12, 358.
Leontius must therefore have died in the summer (Gwatk. p. 153, note), or at the very latest
in October, 357. We cannot, therefore, place the Apology much after this date, for the
reference to Hosius shews — in addition to many other indications — how quickly Athanasius
in his hiding-place was informed of current events.
The Apology was drawn forth by the charge of cowardice circulated against him by the
Arianising party, especially by the three bishops named in § i. After a preamble upon the
motives of his accusers (i, 2), he shews that his own case is but part of a general system (3 — 5)
of expatriation directed against orthodox bishops. He then refers to the circumstance of the
attack upon himself, and dwells at length upon the tyranny of George (6, 7) and the banish-
ment of Egyptian and Libyan bishops. This brings him to the argument (8 — 22) which gives
its name to the tract. After pressing the point that if flight be evil, those who persecute are
the responsible cause (8, 9), and hinting at the real motive of their mortification at his
escape (10), he defends his flight by the example first (10, 11) of the Scripture Saints,
secondly of the Lord Himself (12 — 15). From the latter, he returns to the conduct of the
Saints, who, unlike the Lord (16), were unaware of their appointed time, yet fled or not (17)
as circumstances and the direction of the Spirit required them to do. The Saints if they fled
were not moved to do so by cowardice, else how could their flight so frequently have been the
occasion of divine communications (18—20), and how could such good (21, 22) have resulted
from it? As a pendant to this vindication of flight on principle comes a short (23) but
weighty rebuke of persecution as inherently devilish t-6 fie bionKeiv bia^okiKov ianu imxeiprjiia.
From principle, Athanasius now passes to fact. He gives a graphic description (24) of the
night attack on the Church of Theonas, and shews (25, 26) how fully his action on that
occasion is covered by the examples of the ancient Saints of God. He concludes (26, 27)
with a somewhat exasperated denunciation of his opponents, and a prayer for the frustration
of their intrigues.
The Apology is a loa^s classicus on the duty of Christians under persecution. Athanasius
was not the first great bishop who felt called upon to defend his conduct in retreating ' until
the tyranny be overpast' (see Cyprian, Ep. 20. August, Ep. 228). His principles are laid
down with regard to the common welfare. Rashness must be avoided, with its tendency
to a reaction (17, end), and its presumption in forestalling the time appointed by Providence
for our death. But neither must that time be evaded. When our end must come, we must
face it quietly. Accordingly (22) it is a duty to escape when we can, and to hide when sought
for rather than to follow the exceptional (ib.) action of certain martyrs in courting death.
It is uncertain to whom the ' Defence ' was addressed : it was perhaps a ' memorandum '
to be circulated wherever opportunity offered. The tract has always been justly admired for
its lucidity, force, and dignity. It is quoted largely by Socrates (ii. 28, iii. 8) and by
Theodoret {H.E. ii. 15).
1
DEFENCE OF HIS FLIGHT.
I, Athanastus charged with cowardice for
escaping.
I HEAR that Leontius', now at Antioch,
and Narcissus^ of the city of Nero, and
George 3, now at Laodicea, and the Arians
who are with them, are spreading abroad
many slanderous reports concerning me, charg-
ing me with cowardice, because forsooth,
when I myself was sought by them, I did
not surrender myself into their hands. Now
as to their imputations and calumnies, although
there are many things that I could write, which
even they are unable to deny, and which all who
have heard of their proceedings know to be
true, yet I shall not be prevailed upon to make
any reply to them, except only to remind them
of the words of our Lord, and of the declara-
tion of the Aposde, that * a lie is of the Devil,'
and that, ' revilers shall not inherit the king-
dom of Godt' For it is sufficient thereby
to prove, that neither their thoughts nor their
words are according to the Gospel, but that
after their own pleasure, whatsoever themselves
desire, that they think to be good.
2. Insincerity of this charge.
But forasmuch as they pretend to charge
me with cowardice, it is necessary that I
should write somewhat concerning this, where-
by it shall be proved that they are men of
wicked minds, who have not read the sacred
Scriptures : or if they have read them, that
they do not believe the divine inspiration
of the oracles they contain. For had they
believed this, they would not dare to act
contrary to them, nor imitate the malice
of the Jews who slew the Lord. For God
having given them a commandment, ' Hon-
our thy father and thy mother,' and, *He
that curseth father or mother, let him die
the deaths;' that people established a con-
trary law, changing the honour into dishonour,
and alienating to other uses the money which
» Leontius died in the summer of 357, probably before Ath.
wrote. 2 JDeSyn. 17. 3 Apol. Ar. 48.
4 John viii. 44 ; i Cor. vi. 10. 5 Matt. xv. 4.
was due from the children to their parents.
And though they had read what David did,
they acted in contradiction to his example,
and accused the guiltless for plucking the ears
of corn, and rubbing them in their hands on
the Sabbath day^. Not that they cared either
for the laws, or for the Sabbath, for they were
guilty of greater transgressions of the law on
that day : but being wicked-minded, they
grudged the disciples the way of salvation,
and desired that their own private notions
should have the sole pre-eminence. They
however have received the reward of their
iniquity, having ceased to be an holy nation,
and being counted henceforth as the rulers
of Sodom, and as the people of Gomorrah?.
And these men likewise, not less than they,
seem to me to have received their punish-
ment already in their ignorance of their own
folly. For they understand not what they
say, but think that they know things of
which they are ignorant; while* the only
knowledge that is in them is to do evil, and
to frame devices more and more wicked day
by day. Thus they reproach us with our
present flight, not for the sake of virtue,
as wishing us to shew manliness by coming
forward (how is it possible that such a wish
can be entertained by enemies in behalf of
those who run not with them in the same
career of madness?) ; but being full of malice,
they pretend this, and buzz^ all around that
such is the case, thinking, foolish as indeed
they are, that through fear of their revilings,
we shall yet be induced to give ourselves up
to them. For this is what they desire: to
accomplish this they have recourse to all
kinds of schemes : they pretend themselves
to be friends, while they search as enemies,
to the end that they may glut themselves
with our blood, and put us also out of the
way, because we have always opposed and do
still oppose their impiety, and confute and
brand their heresy.
6 Luke vi. 1. sqg. 7 Isa. i. 10, n.
De/l 14, note i ; Greg. Naz. Orat. 27. n. 2.
• irepi/3oju/5et»', Nic.
256
APOLOGIA DE FUGA.
3. Outrages of the A Hans against the
Bishops.
For whom have they ever persecuted and
taken, that they have not insulted and injured
as they pleased ? Whom have they ever sought
after and found, that they have not handled
in such a manner, that either he has died
a miserable death, or has been ill-treated
in every way? Whatever the magistrates
appear to do, it is their work ; and the
others are merely the tools of their will and
wickedness. In consequence, where is there
a place that has not some memorial of their
malice ? Who has ever opposed them, without
their conspiring against him, inventing pretexts
for his ruin after the manner of Jezebel?
Where is there a Church that is not at this
moment lamenting the success of their plots
against her Bishops? Antioch is mourning
for the orthodox Confessor Eustathius^; Ba-
lanea? for the most admirable Euphration^";
Paltus and Antaradus for Kymatius" and
Carterius ; Adrianople for that lover of Christ,
Eutropius, and his successor Lucius, who was
often loaded with chains by their means, and
so perished ; Ancyra mourns for Marcellus,
Berrhoea' for Cyrus", Gaza for Asclepas. Of
all these, after inflicting many outrages, they
by their intrigues procured the banishment;
but for Theodulus and Olympius, Bishops
of Thrace, and for us and our Presbyters,
they caused diligent search to be made, to the
intent thaj; if we were discovered we should
suffer cap'ital punishment : and probably we
should have so perished, had we not fled at
that very time contrary to their intentions.
For letters to that effect were delivered to the
Proconsul Donatus against Olympius and his
fellows, and to Philagrius against me. And
having raised a persecution against Paul,
Bishop of Constantinople, as soon as they
found him, they caused him to be openly
strangled^ at a place called Cucusus in Cappa-
docia, employing as their executioner for the
purpose Philip, who was Prefect. He was
a patron of their heresy, and the tool of their
wicked designs.
4. Proceedings after the Council of Milan.
Are they then satisfied with all this, and
content to be quiet for the future? By no
9 Vid. Hist. Arian. § 4. also Theodoret Hist. i. 20. [Prolegg.
ch. ii. I 4.] The name of Euphration occurs de Syn. 17. as the
Bishop to whom Eusebius of Caesarea wrote an heretical letter.
Balanese is on the Syrian coast. Paltus also and Antaradus are
in Syria, and these persecutions took place about a.d. 338 ; that
of Eutropius, and of Lucius his successor, about 331, shortly after
the proceedings against Eustathius. Cyrus too was banished
under pretence of Sabellianism about 338. For Asclepas, Theo-
dulus, and Olympius vid. Hist. Arian. § 19. and supr. AJ>ol. Ar.
44,45. ^° Hist. Arian. 5. " Tom. ad Ant. i Beroea,
Hist. Ar. $. 2 A.D. 350, infr. Hist. Arian. § 4 ; for Cucusus,
see D.C.B. i. 529, 530.
means ; they have not given over yet, but like
the horseleach3 in the Proverbs, they revel
more and more in their wickedness, and fix
themselves upon the larger dioceses. Who
can adequately describe the enormities they
have already perpetrated? who is able to
recount all the deeds that they have done?
Even very lately, while the Churches were at
peace, and the people worshipping in their
congregations, Liberius, Bishop of Rome,
Paulinus*, MetropoHtan of Gaul, Dionysiuss,
Metropolitan of Italy, Lucifer^, Metropolitan
of the Sardinian islands, and Eusebius 7 of
Italy, all of them good Bishops and preachers
of the truth, were seized and banished^, on
no pretence whatever, except that they would
not unite themselves to the Arian heresy,
nor subscribe to the false accusations and
calumnies which they had invented against
me.
5. In praise of Hosiiis.
Of the great Hosius^, who answers to his
name, that confessor of a happy old age, it is
superfluous for me to speak, for I suppose it
is known unto all men that they caused him
also to be banished ; for he is not an obscure
person, but of all men the most illustrious, and
more than this. When was there a Council
held, in which he did not take the lead",
and by right counsel convince every one?
Where is there a Church that does not possess
some glorious monuments of his patronage?
Who has ever come to him in sorrow, and has
not gone away rejoicing ? What needy person
ever asked his aid, and did not obtain what
he desired ? And yet even on this man they
made their assault, because knowing the calum-
nies which they invent in behalf of their ini-
quity, he would not subscribe to their designs
against us. And if afterwards, upon the
repeated stripes above measure that were in-
flicted upon him, and the conspiracies that
were formed against his kinsfolk, he yielded'
to them for a time 2, as being old and infirm in
body, yet at least their wickedness is shewn
even in this circumstance ; so zealously did
they endeavour by all means to prove that
they were not truly Christians.
6. Outrages of George upon the Alex-
andrians.
After this they again fastened themselves
upon Alexandria, seeking anew to put us to
death : and their proceedings were now worse
than before. For on a sudden the Church
3 Hist. Arian. § 65 ; Prov. xxx. 15- ^„ „ * ^}7A^^^\
5 Of Milan. eOfCagliari. 7 OfVercellae. 8 [Council
of Milan, 355.] 9 Hist. Ar. 42. "[Nicsea and Sardtca are
specially referred to, but see Prolegg. ch. 11. §3(1) note 5, suO.fin.l
I [Apol. Ar. 89, Hist. Ar. 45, 357 a.d.] « Gal. ii. 5-
DEFENCE OF HIS FLIGHT.
257
was surrounded by soldiers, and sounds of
war took the place of prayers. Then George 3
of Cappadocia who was sent by them, having
arrived during the season of Lent*, brought an
increase of evils which they had taught him.
For after Easter week. Virgins were thrown
into prison ; Bishops were led away in chains
by soldiers ; houses of orphans and widows
were plundered, and their loaves taken away ;
attacks were made upon houses, and Christians
thrust forth in the night, and their dwellings
sealed up : brothers of clergymen were in
danger of their lives on account of their breth-
ren. These outrages were sufficiently dreadful,
but more dreadful than these followed. For
on the week that succeeded the Holy Pente-
cost [May 11], when the people after their
fast had gone out to the cemetery to pray,
because that all refused communion with
George, that abandoned person, on learning
this, stirred up against them the comman-
der Sebastian, a Manichee ; who straight-
way with a multitude of soldiers with arms,
drawn swords, bows, and spears, proceeded
to attack the people, though it was the Lord's
day 5 : and finding a few praying (for the
greater part had already retired on account of
the lateness of the hour), he committed such
outrages as became a disciple of these men.
Having lighted a pile, he placed certain virgins
near the fire, and endeavoured to force them
to say that they were of the Arian faith ; and
when he saw that they were getting the
mastery, and cared not for the fire, he imme-
diately stripped them naked, and beat them
in the face in such a manner, that for some
time they could hardly be recognised.
7 . Outrages of George.
And having seized upon forty men, he
beat them after a new fashion. Cutting some
sticks fresh from the palm tree, with the thorns
still upon them^, he scourged them on the
back so severely, that some of them were for
a long time under surgical treatment on ac-
count of the thorns which had broken off in
their flesh, and others unable to bear up under
their sufferings died. All those whom they
had taken, and the virgin, they sent away
together into banishment to the great Oasis.
And the bodies of those who had perished
they would not at first suffer to be given
3 Apol. Const. 30, note s, and refF.
4 [Comp. Encyc. § 4. The present passage certainly appears
to put the arrival of George in the Lent immediately following the
irruption ot Syrianus : but see Prolegg. ch. ii. §8 (i), note 5,
below, Fest. Index, xxix., and the explanation in Chron. Acepli.
that the party of George took possession of the Churches (in
June 356), eight months before George arrived in person. Cf.
Introd. to Apol. Const.]
5 [Sunday, May 18, 357. The Roman martyrology celebrates
these victims on May 21, which suits the reference of the present
passage to 357.] ^ Hist. Arian. § 72.
VOL. IV.
up to their friends, but concealed them in
any way they pleased, and cast them out
without burial?, in order that they might not
appear to have any knowledge of these cruel
proceedings. But herein their deluded minds
greatly misled them. For the relatives of the
dead, both rejoicing at the confession, and
grieving for the bodies of their friends, pub-
lislied abroad so much the more this proof of
their impiety and cruelty. Moreover they
immediately banished out of Egypt and Libya
the following Bishops^, Ammonius, Muius',
Gaius, Philo9, Hermes, Plenius, Psenosiris,
Nilammon, Agathus, Anagamphus, Marcus,
Ammonius, another Marcus, Dracontius',
Adelphius^, Athenodorus, and the Presbyters,
Hierax3, and Dioscorus ; whom they drove
forth under such cruel treatment, that some of
them died on the way, and others in the place
of their banishment. They caused also more
than thirty Bishops to take to flight ; for their
desire was, after the example of Ahab, if it
were possible, utterly to root out the truth.
Such are the enormities of which these im-
pious men have been guilty.
8. If it is wrong to flee, it is worse to
persecute.
But although 4 they have done all this, yet
they are not ashamed of the evils they have
already contrived against me, but proceed now
to accuse me, because I have been able to
escape their murderous hands. Nay, they
bitterly bewail themselves, that they have not
effectually put me out of the way ; and so they
pretend to reproach me with cowardice, not
perceiving that by thus murmuring against me,
they rather turn the blame upon themselves.
For if it be a bad thing to flee, it is much worse
to persecute ; for the one party hides himself
to escape death, the other persecutes with a
desire to kill ; and it is written in the Scrip-
tures that we ought to flee ; but he that seeks
to destroy transgresses the law, nay, and is
himself the occasion of the other's flight. If
then they reproach me with my flight, let them
be more ashamed of their own persecution s.
Let them cease to conspire, and they who
flee will forthwith cease to do so. But
they, instead of giving over their wicked-
ness, are employing every means to obtain
possession of my person, not perceiving that
the flight of those who are persecuted is a
strong argument against those who persecute.
For no man flees from the gentle and the
humane, but from the cruel and the evil-
7 Ibid. § 72 fin. Apol. Const. 27. S Ibid, anu see Hist.
Ar. % J2. 9 Hieron. V. Hilar. § 30. [Rather see Letter j^g. 7,
notes 3 (a and b), and Vit. Pachom. 72, where the same names
occur together.] ^ Letter ^g. '^ Letter 60. 3 Letter 4g. 10.
4 Cited by Socrates iii. 8. 3 Apol. Ar. § 4.
258
APOLOGIA DE FUGA.
minded. ' Every one that was in distress, and
every one that was in debt^,' fled from Saul,
and took refuge with David. But this is the
reason why these men desire to cut off those
who are in concealment, that there* may be no
evidence forthcoming of their wickedness. But
herein their minds seem to be blinded with
their usual error. For the more the flight of
their enemies becomes known, so much the
more notorious will be the destruction or the
banishment which their treachery has brought
upon them?; so that whether they kill them
outright, their death will be the more loudly
noised abroad against them, or whether they
drive them into banishment, they will but be
sending forth everywhere monuments of their
own iniquity.
9. The accusation shews the mind of the
accusers.
Now if they had been of sound mind, they
would have seen that they were in this strait,
and that they were falling foul of their own
arguments. But since they have lost all judg-
ment, they are still led on to persecute, and
seek to destroy, and yet perceive not their own
impiety. It may be they even venture to
accuse Providence itself (for nothing is beyond
the reach of their presumption), that it does
not deliver up to them those whom they de-
sire ; certain as it is, according to the saying of
our Saviour, that not even a sparrow can fall
into the snare without our Father which is in
heaven^. But when these accursed ones ob-
tain possession of any one, they immediately
forget not only all other, but even themselves ;
and raising their brow in very haughtiness,
they neither acknowledge times and seasons,
nor respect human nature in those whom they
injure. Like the tyrant of Babylon 9, they attack
more furiously; they shew pity to none, but
mercilessly ' upon the ancient,' as it is written,
'they very heavily lay the yoke,' and 'they add
to the grief of them that are wounded '.'
Had they not acted in this manner; had
they not driven into banishment those who
spoke in my defence against their calumnies,
their representations might have appeared to
some persons sufficiently plausible. But since
they have conspired against so many other Bi-
shops of high character, and have spared neither
the great confessor Hosius, nor the Bishop of
Rome, nor so many others from the Spains
and the Gauls, and Egypt, and Libya, and
the other countries, but have committed such
cruel outrages against all who have in any way
opposed them in my behalf; is it not plain
S I Sam. xxii. 2.
8 Matt. X. 29. 9 Encyc. 5.
7 Hist. Arian. §§ 34, 35.
' Is. xlvii. 6 ; Ps. Ixix. 26.
that their designs have been directed rather
against me than against any other, and that
their desire is miserably to destroy me as they
have done others? To accomplish this they
vigilantly watch for an opportunity, and think
themselves injured, when they see those safe,
whom they wished not to live.
10. Their real grievance is not that Athanasius
is a coward, but that he is free.
Who then does not perceive their craftiness?
Is it not very evident to every one that they
do not reproach me with cowardice from re-
gard to virtue, but that being athirst for
blood, they employ these their base devices as
nets, thinking thereby to catch those whom
they seek to destroy? That such is their
character is shewn by their actions, which
have convicted them of possessing dispositions
more savage than wild beasts, and more cruel
than Babylonians. But although the proof
against them is sufficiently clear from all this,
yet since they still dissemble with soft words
after the manner of their 'father the devil %'
and pretend to charge me with cowardice,
while they are themselves more cowardly than
hares ; let us consider what is written in the
Sacred Scriptures respecting such cases as
this. For thus they will be shewn to fight
against the Scriptures no less than against me,
while they detract from the virtues of the
Saints.
For if they reproach men for hiding them-
selves from those who seek to destroy them,
and accuse those who flee from their perse-
cutors, what will they do when they see Jacob
fleeing from his brother Esau, and Moses with-
drawing into Midian for fear of Pharaoh ?
What excuse will they make for David, after
all this idle talk, for fleeing from his house on
account of Saul, when he sent to kill him, and
for hiding himself in the cave, and for changing
his appearance, until he withdrew from Abim-
elech 4j and escaped his designs against him ?
What will they say, they who are ready to say
anything, when they see the great Elijah, after
calling upon God and raising the dead, hiding
himself for fear of Ahab, and fleeing from the
threats of Jezebel ? At which time also the
sons of the prophets, when they were sought
after, hid themselves with the assistance of
Obadiah, and lay concealed in caves \
II. Exatnples of Scripture Saints iti defence
of flight.
Perhaps they have not read these histories ;
as being out of date ; yet have they no recol-
^ John viii.
Ps. xxxiv.]
4 Achish, I Sam. xxi. 13 [but cf. tide of
5 I Kings xviii. 15 ; Hist. Ar. § 5^.
DEFENCE OF HIS FLIGHT.
259
lection of what is written in the Gospel ? For
the disciples also withdrew and hid themselves
for fear of the Jews ; and Paul, when he was
sought after by the governor at Damascus, was
let down from the wall in a basket, and so
escaped his hands. As the Scripture then
relates these things of the Saints, what excuse
will they be able to invent for their wicked-
ness ? To reproach them with cowardice would
be an act of madness, and to accuse them of
acting contrary to the will of God, would be
to shew themselves entirely ignorant of the
Scriptures. For there was a command under
the law^ that cities of refuge should be ap-
pointed, in order that they who were sought
after to be put to death, might at least have
some means of saving themselves. And when
He Who spake unto Moses, the Word of the
Father, appeared in the end of the world. He
also gave this commandment, saying, ' But
when they persecute you in this city, flee ye
into another:' and shortly after He says,
* When ye therefore shall see the abomination
of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the pro-
phet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth,
let him understand); then let them which be
in Judaea flee into the mountains : let him
which is on the housetop not come down to
take any thing out of his house : neither let
him which is in the field return back to take
his clothes?.' Knowing these things, the
Saints regulated their conduct accordingly.
For what our Lord has now commanded, the
same also He spoke by His Saints before His
coming in the flesh : and this is the rule which
is given unto men to lead them to perfection —
what God commands, that to do.
12. T^e Lord an example of timely flight.
Wherefore also the Word Himself, being
made man for our sakes, condescended to hide
Himself when He was sought after, as we do :
and also when He was persecuted, to flee and
avoid the designs of His enemies. For it be-
came Him, as by hunger and thirst and suf-
fering, so also by hiding Himself and fleeing,
to shew that He had taken our flesh, and was
made man. Thus at the very first, as soon as
He became man, when He was a little child,
He Himself by His Angel commanded Joseph,
'Arise, and take the young Child and His
Mother, and flee into Egypt; for Herod will
seek the young Child's life^.' And when Herod
was dead, we find Him withdrawing to Na-
zareth by reason of Archelaus his son. And
when afterwards He was shewing Himself to
be God, and made whole the withered hand,
the Pharisees went out, and held a council
* Ex. xxi. 13. 7 Matt. x. 23 ; xxiv. 15. ^ Matt. ii. 13.
against Him, how they might destroy Him ;
but when Jesus knew it, He withdrew Himself
from thence 9. So also when He raised Lazarus
from the dead, * from that day forth,' says the
Scripture, ' they took counsel for to put Him
to death. Jesus therefore walked no more
openly among the Jews ; but went thence into
the country near to the wilderness '°.' Again,
when our Saviour said, 'Before Abraham was,
I am,' ' the Jews took up stones to cast at Him ;
but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the
temple '.' And ' going through the midst of
them. He went His way,' and ' so passed by ^'
13. Exainph of our Lord.
When they see these things, or rather even
hear of them, for see they do not, will they
not desire, as it is written, to become ' fuel
of fire ^%' because their counsels and their
words are contrary to what the Lord both did
and taught ? Also when John was martyred,
and his disciples buried his body, 'when Jesus
heard of it. He departed thence by ship into
a desert place apart 3.' Thus the Lord acted,
and thus He taught. Would that these men
were even now ashamed of their conduct, and
confined their rashness to man, nor proceeded
to such extreme madness as even to charge
our Saviour with cowardice ! for it is against
Him that they now utter their blasphemies.
But no one will endure such madness ; nay it
will be seen that they do not understand the
Gospels. The cause must be a reasonable
and just one, which the Evangelists represent
as weighing with our Saviour to withdraw and
to flee ; and we ought therefore to assign the
same for the conduct of all the Saints. (For
whatever is written concerning our Saviour in
His human nature, ought to be considered as
applying to the whole race of mankind *;
because He took our body, and exhibited in
Himself human infirmity.) Now of this cause
John has written thus, 'They sought to take
Him : but no man laid hands on Him, be-
cause His hour was not yet come 5.' And
before it came. He Himself said to His
Mother, ' Mine hour is not yet come ^ : ' and
to them who were called His brethren, ' My
time is not yet come ?.' And again, when His
time was come, He said to the disciples,
' Sleep on now, and take your rest : for be-
hold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man
is betrayed into the hands of sinners ^.'
14. An hour and a titnefor all fnen.
Now in so far as He was God and the Word
9 Matt. xii. 15. 10 John xi. 53, 54. » John viu. 58, 59.
2 Luke iv. 30. 2a Is. ix. 5. 3 Matt. xiv. 13. '* Cf. Oiat.
i. 43. 5 John vii. 30. 6 John ii. 4. ^ John vii. 6.
8 Matt. xxvt. 45-
S 2
i6o
APOLOGIA DE FUGA.
of the Father, He had no time ; for He is
Himself the Creator of times 9. But being
made man, He shews by speaking in this
manner that there is a time allotted to every
man ; and that not by chance, as some of the
Gentiles imagine in their fables, but a time
which He, the Creator, has appointed to every
one according to the will of the Father. This
is written in the Scriptures, and is manifest to
all men. For although it be hidden and un-
known to all, what period of time is allotted
to each, and how it is allotted ; yet every one
knows this, that as there is a time for spring
and for summer, and for autumn and for
winter, so, as it is written ^°, there is a time to
die, and a time to live. And so the time of
the generation which lived in the days of
Noah was cut short, and their years were con-
tracted, because the time of all things was at
hand. But to Hezekiah were added fifteen
•years. And as God promises to them that
serve Him truly, ' I will fulfil the number of
thy days S' Abraham dfes 'full of days,' and
David besought God, saying, 'Take me not
away in the midst of my days '.' And Eliphaz,
one of the friends of Job, being assured of this
truth, said, ' Thou shalt come to thy grave like
ripe corn, gathered in due time, and like as
a shock of corn cometh in in his season 3.'
And Solomon confirming his words, says, ' The
souls of the unrighteous are taken away un-
timely *.' And therefore he exhorts in the
book of Ecclesiastes, saying, ' Be not overmuch
wicked, neither be thou hard : why shouldest
thou die before thy time s ? '
15. TAe Lord's hour and time.
Now as these things are written in the
Scriptures, the case is clear, that the saints
know that a certain time is measured to every
man, but that no one knows the end of that
time is plainly intimated by the words of
David, ' Declare unto me the shortness of my
days ^' What he did not know, that he desired
to be informed of. Accordingly the rich man
also, while he thought that he had yet a long
time to live, heard the words, ' Thou fool,
this night they are requiring thy soul : then
whose shall those things be which thou hast
provided 7 ? ' And the Preacher speaks con-
fidently in the Holy Spirit, and says, 'Man
also knoweth not his time^* Wherefore the
Patriarch Isaac said to his son Esau, * Behold,
I am old, and I know not the day of my
death 9.* Our Lord therefore, although as God,
and the Word of the Father, He both knew
9 De Deer. i8, note 5. "> Eccles. iii. •. * Ex. xxiii. 36 ;
Gen. XXV. 8. » Ps. cii. 24. 3 Job v. 26, LXX.
4 Vid. Prov. X. 27. 5 Eccles. vii. 17. • Ps. cii. 23, LXX.
7 Luke xii. 20. 8 Eccles. ix. la. 9 Gen. xxvii. s.
the time measured out by Him to all, and was
conscious of the time for suffering, which He
Himself had appointed also to His own body ;
yet since He was made man for our sakes, He
hid Himself when He was sought after before
that time came, as we do ; when He was
persecuted, He fled ; and avoiding the designs
of His enemies He passed by, and 'so went
through the midst of them ^' But when He
had brought on that time which He Himself
had appointed, at which He desired to suffer
in the body for all men. He announces it to
the Father, saying, ' Father, the hour is come ;
glorify Thy Son ^' And then He no longer
hid Himself from those who sought Him, but
stood willing to be taken by them ; for the
Scripture says, He said to them that came
unto Him, 'Whom seek ye 3?' and when they
answered, ' Jesus of Nazareth,' He saith unto
them, ' I am He whom ye seek.' And this
He did even more than once ; and so they
straightway led Him away to Pilate. He
neither suffered Himself to be taken before the
time came, nor did He hide Himself when it
was come ; but gave Himself up to them that
conspired against Him, that He might shew to
all men that the life and death of man depend
upon the divine sentence; and that without
our Father which is in heaven, neither a hair
of man's head can become white or black, nor
a sparrow ever fall into the snare \
1 6. The Lord's exajnple followed by the Saints.
Our Lord therefore, as I said before, thus
offered Himself for all ; and the Saints having
received this example from their Saviour (for
all of them before His coming, nay always,
were under His teaching), in their conflicts
with their persecutors acted lawfully in flying,
and hiding themselves when they were sought
after. And being ignorant, as men, of the
end of the time which Providence had ap-
pointed unto them, they were unwilling at once
to deliver themselves up into the power of
those who conspired against them. But know-
ing on the other hand what is written, that ' the
portions' of man ' are in God's hand s,' and that
' the Lord killeth ^,' and the Lord ' maketh aUve,'
they the rather endured unto the end, ' wand-
ering about 7,' as the Apostle has said, 'in
sheepskins, and goatskins, being destitute, tor-
mented, wandering in deserts,' and hiding
themselves ' in dens and caves of the earth ; '
until either the appointed time of death
arrived, or God who had appointed their time
spake unto them, and stayed the designs of
their enemies, or else delivered up the perse-
I Luke iv. 30.
4 Matt. V. 36 ; X. 39.
7 Heb. xi. 37, 38.
■ John xvii. i.
5 Ps. xxxL 15.
3 John xviii. ^ 5.
6 I Sam. li. 6.
DEFENCE OF HIS FLIGHT.
261
cuted to their persecutors, according as it
seemed to Him to be good. This we may
well learn respecting all men from David : for
when Joab instigated him to slay Saul, he said,
* As the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him ;
or his day shall come to die ; or he shall
descend into battle, and be delivered to the
enemies; the Lord forbid that I should stretch
forth my hand against the Lord's anointed V
J "J. A time to flee and a time to stay.
And if ever in their flight they came unto
those that sought after them, they did not
do so without reason : but when the Spirit
spoke unto them, then as righteous men they
went and met their enemies ; by which they
also shewed their obedience and zeal towards
God. Such was the conduct of Elijah, when,
being commanded by the Spirit, he shewed
himself unto Ahab 9 ; and of Micaiah the
prophet when he came to the same Ahab ;
and of the prophet who cried against the altar
in Samaria, and rebuked Rehoboam ^° ; and of
Paul when he appealed unto Caesar. It was
not certainly through cowardice that they fled :
God forbid. The flight to which they sub-
mitted was rather a conflict and war against
death. For with wise caution they guarded
against these two things ; either that they
should offer themselves up without reason (for
this would have been to kill themselves, and
to become guilty of death, and to transgress
the saying of the Lord, 'What God hath
joined let not man put asunder ^ ' ), or that they
should willingly subject themselves to the
reproach of negHgence, as if they were un-
moved by the tribulations which they met
with in their flight, and which brought with
them sufferings greater and more terrible
than death. For he that dies, ceases to suf-
fer; but he that flies, while he expects daily
the assaults of his enemies, esteems death
lighter. They therefore whose course was con-
summated in their flight did not perish dis-
honourably, but attained as well as others the
glory of martyrdom. Therefore it is that Job
was accounted a man of mighty fortitude, be-
cause he endured to live under so many and
such severe sufferings, of which he would
have had no sense, had he come to his end.
Wherefore the blessed Fathers thus regu-
lated their conduct also ; they shewed no
cowardice in fleeing from the persecutor, but
rather manifested their fortitude of soul in
shutting themselves up in close and dark
places, and living a hard life. Yet did they
not desire to avoid the time of death when it
arrived; for their concern was neither to
8 I Sam. xxvi. lo, ii.
**> Le, Jeroboam i Kings xiiL a.
f X Kings xxi. i8
I Matt. xix. 6.
shrink from it when it came, nor to forestall
the sentence determined by Providence, nor
to resist His dispensation, for which they knew
themselves to be preserved ; lest by acting
hastily, they should become to themselves the
cause of terror : for thus it is written, ' He
that is hasty with his lips, shall bring terror
upon himself ^'
18. The Saints who fled were no cowards.
Of a truth no one can possibly doubt that
they were well furnished with the virtue of for-
titude. For the Patriarch Jacob who had
before fled from Esau, feared not death when
it came, but at that very time blessed the
Patriarchs, each according to his deserts. And
the great Moses, who previously had hid him-
self from Pharaoh, and had withdrawn into
Midian for fear of him, when he received the
commandment, 'Return into Egypt 3,' feared not
to do so. And again, when he was bidden to
go up into the mountain Abarim * and die, he
delayed not through cowardice, but even joy-
fully proceeded thither. And David, who had
before fled from Saul, feared not to risk his life
in war in defence of his people ; but having the
choice of death or of flight set before him,
when he might have fled and lived, he wisely
preferred death. And the great Elijah, who
had at a former time hid himself from Jezebel,
shewed no cowardice when he was commanded
by the Spirit to meet Ahab, and to reprove
Ahaziah, And Peter, who had hid himself for
fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was
let down in a basket, and fled, when they were
told, 'Ye must bear witness at Romes,' de-
ferred not the journey ; yea, rather, they depart-
ed rejoicing^ ; the one as hastening to meet
his friends, received his death with exultation ;
and the other shrunk not from the time when
it came, but gloried in it, saying, ' For I am
now ready to be offered, and the time of my
departure is at hand 7.'
19. The Saints courageous in their flighty and
divinely favoured.
These things both prove that their pre-
vious flight was not the effect of cowardice ;
and testify that their after conduct also was of
no ordinary character : and they loudly pro-
claim that they possessed in a high degree
the virtue of fortitude. For neither did they
withdraw themselves on account of a sloth-
ful timidity, on the contrary, they were at
such times under the practice of a severer
disciphne than at others ; nor were they con
a Prov. xiii. 3, LXX. 3 Vid. Ex. iii. 10. 4 Deut. xxxii 49.
S Vid. Acts xxiii. 11. [The reference to the Roman maityrdoiu
of the tixjo great Apostles should be noted. The tradition is as
old as Clem. Rom. ; much older than that 01 the Roman Episcopate
of one of them.] « Vid. Euseb. HUt. ii. 25. 7 a Tim. iv. 6
262
APOLOGIA DE FUGA.
demned for their flight, or charged with cow-
ardice, by such as are now so fond of crimi-
nating others. Nay they were blessed through
that declaration of our Lord, 'Blessed are
they which are persecuted for righteousness
sake^* Nor yet were these their sufferings
without profit to themselves ; for having tried
them as 'gold in the furnace,' as Wisdom
has said, God found them worthy of Him-
self 9. And then they shone the more ' like
sparks,' being saved from them that perse-
cuted them, and delivered from the designs
of their enemies, and preserved to the end
that they might teach the people j so that
their flight and escape from the rage of them
that sought after them, was according to the
dispensation of the Lord. And so they became
dear in the sight of God, and had the most
glorious testimony to their fortitude.
20. Same subject continued.
Thus, for example, the Patriarch Jacob was
favoured in his flight with many, ev5n divine
visions, and remaining quiet himself, he had the
Lord on his side, rebuking Laban, and hinder-
ing the designs of Esau ; and afterwards he be-
came the Father of Judah, of whom sprang the
Lord according to the flesh ; and he dispensed
the blessings to the Patriarchs. And when
Moses the beloved of God was in exile, then
it was that he saw that great sight, and being
preserved from his persecutors, was sent as a
prophet into Egypt, and being made the
minister of those mighty wonders and of the
Law, he led that great people in the wilderness.
And David when he was persecuted wrote the
Psalm, 'My heart uttered a good word^;'
and, ' Our God shall come even visibly, and
shall not keep silenced' And again he speaks
more confidently, saying, ' Mine eye hath seen
his desire upon mine enemies 3 ;' and again,
' In God have I put my trust ; I will not be
afraid what man can do unto me •♦.' And when
he fled and escaped from the face of Saul ' to
the cave,' he said, ' He hath sent from heaven,
and hath saved me. He hath given them to
reproach that would tread me under their
feet. God hath sent His mercy and truth,
and hath delivered my soul from the midst
of lions 5.' Thus he too was saved accord-
ing to the dispensation of God, and after-
wards became king, and received the pro-
mise, that from his seed our Lord should
issue. And the great Elijah, when he with-
drew to mount Carmel, called upon God, and
destroyed at once more than four hundred pro-
phets of Baal ; and when there were sent to
take him two captains of fifty with their
hundred men, he said, ' Let fire come down
from heaven ^,' and thus rebuked them. And
he too was preserved, so that he anointed
Elisha in his own stead, and became a pattern
of discipline for the sons of the prophets. And
the blessed Paul, after writing these words,
' what persecutions I endured ; but out of them
all the Lord delivered me, and will deliver 7;*
could speak more confidently and say, ' But in
all these things we are more than conquerors,
for nothing shall separate us from the love of
Christ^.' For then it was that he was caught
up to the third heaven, and admitted into para-
dise, where he heard 'unspeakable words,
which it is not lawful for a man to utter 9.*
And for this end was he then preserved, that
' from Jerusalem even unto Illyricum ' he might
'fully preach the Gospel ^°.'
21. The Saints fled for our sakes.
The flight of the saints therefore was neither
blameable nor unprofitable. If they had not
avoided their persecutors, how would it have
come to pass that the Lord should spring from
the seed of David ? Or who would have
preached the glad tidings of the word of
truth? It was for this that the persecutors
sought after the saints, that there might be no
one to teach, as the Jews charged the Apostles ;
but for this cause they endured all things, that
the Gospel might be preached. Behold, there-
fore, in that they were thus engaged in conflict
with their enemies, they passed not the time of
their flight unprofitably, nor while they were per-
secuted, did they forget the welfare of others :
but as being ministers of the good word, they
grudged not to communicate it to all men ;
so that even- while they fled, they preached
the Gospel, and gave warning of the wicked-
ness of those who conspired against them, and
confirmed the faithful by their exhortations.
Thus the blessed Paul, having found it so by
experience, declared beforehand, ' As many as
will live godly in Christ, shall suffer persecu-
tion '.* And so he straightway prepared them
that fled for the trial, saying, ' Let us run with
patience the race that is set before us'^;' for
although there be continual tribulations, 'yet
tribulation worketh patience, and patience ex-
perience, and experience hope, and hope maketh
not ashamed 3.' And the Prophet Isaiah when
such-like affliction was expected, exhorted and
cried aloud, ' Come, my people, enter thou into
thy chambers, and shut thy doors ; hide thyself
as it were for a little moment, until the indigna-
tion be overpast *.' And so also the Preacher,^
8 Matt. V. 10. 9 Wisd. iii. 57. i Ps. xlv. i.
» Ps. 1. 3, LXX. 3 Ps. liv. 7. 4 Ps. Ivi. n. S Ps. Ivii. 3.
6 2 Kings i. la
9 2 Cor. xii. 4.
2 Heb. xii. I.
1 2 Tim. iii. 11.
*° Rom. XV. 19.
3 Rom. V. 4.
8 Rom. yiii. 35, 37
I 2 Tim. iii. iz
4 Is. xxvi. 20.
DEFENCE OF HIS FLIGHT.
263
who knew the conspiracies against the right-
eous, and said, ' If thou seest the oppres-
sion of the poor, and violent perverting of
judgment and justice in a province, marvel not
at the matter : for He that is higher than the
highest regardeth, and there be higher than
they: moreover there is the profit of the earths.'
He had his own father David for an example,
who had himself experienced the sufferings of
persecution, and who supports them that suffer
by the words, ' Be of good courage, and He
shall strengthen your heart, all ye that put your
trust in the Lord ^ ; ' for them that so endure,
not man, but the Lord Himself (he says), ' shall
help them, and deliver them, because they put
their trust in Him :' for I also 'waited patiently
for the Lord, and He inclined unto me, and
heard my calling ; He brought me up also out
of the lowest pit, and out of tlie mire and clay?.'
Thus is shewn how profitable to the people and
productive of good is the flight of the Saints,
howsoever the Arians may think otherwise.
22. Same subject concluded.
Thus the Saints, as I said before, were'
abundantly preserved in their flight by the
Providence of God, as physicians for the sake
of them that had need. And to all men gene-
rally, even to us, is this law given, to flee when
persecuted, and to hide when sought after,
and not rashly tempt the Lord, but wait, as
I said above, until the appointed time of death
arrive, or the Judge determine something con-
cerning them, according as it shall seem to
Him to be good : that men should be ready,
that, when the time calls, or when they are
taken, they may contend for the truth even unto
death. This rule the blessed Martyrs observed
in their several persecutions. When persecuted
they fled, while concealing themselves they
shewed fortitude, and when discovered they
submitted to martyrdom. And if some of them
came and presented themselves to their perse-
cutors^, they did not do so without reason ; for
immediately in that case they were martyred,
and thus made it evident to all that their zeal,
and this ofi'ering up of themselves to their
enemies, were from the Spirit.
23. Persecution is from the Devil.
Seeing therefore that such are the com-
mands of our Saviour, and that such is the
conduct of the Saints, let these persons, to
whom one cannot give a name suitable to their
character, —let them, I say, tell us, from whom
they learnt to persecute? They cannot say,
S Eccles. V. 8, 9. LXX. * Ps. xxxi. 24.
7 Ps. xxxvii. 40 ; xl. i.
8 Vid. instances and passages collected in Pearson '.s Vind. Ignat.
part ii. o. 9 ; also Gibbon, ch. xvi. p. 428. Mosheim de Reb. Ante
Const, p. 941. [See D.C.A. p. 1119 (3).]
from the Saints 9. No, but from the Devil
(that is the only answer which is left them) ; —
from him who says, ' I will pursue, I will over-
take ^°.' Our Lord commanded to flee, and
the saints fled : but persecution is a device
of the Devil, and one which he desires to
exercise against all. Let them say then, to
which we ought to submit ourselves ; to the
words of the Lord, or to their fabrications?
Whose conduct ought we to imitate, that of
the Saints, or that of those whose example
these men have adopted? But since it is likely
they cannot determine this question (for, as
Esaias said, their minds and their consciences
are blinded, and they think 'bitter to be sweet,'
and 'light darkness^'), let some one come forth
from among us Christians, and put them to
rebuke, and cry with a loud voice, ' It is
better to trust in the Lord, than to attend
to the foolish sayings of these men ; for the
"words " of the Lord have " eternal life%" but
the things which these utter are full of iniquity
and blood.'
24. Irruption of Syrianus.
This were sufficient to put a stop to the
madness of these impious men, and to prove
that their desire is for nothing else, but only
through a love of contention to utter revil-
ings and insults. But forasmuch as having
once dared to fight against Christ, they have
now become officious, let them enquire and
learn into the manner of my withdrawal from
their own friends. For the Arians were mixed
with the soldiers in order to exasperate them.
against me, and, as they were unacquainted
with my person, to point me out to them. And
although they are destitute of all feelings of
compassion, yet when they hear the circum-
stances they will surely be quiet for very shame.
It was now night 3, and some of the people
were keeping a vigil preparatory to a com-
munion on the morrow, when the General
Syrianus suddenly came upon us with more
than five thousand soldiers, having arms and
drawn swords, bows, spears, and clubs, as
1 have related above. With these he sur-
rounded the Church, stationing his soldiers
near at hand, in order that no one might be
able to leave the Church and pass by them.
Now I considered that it would be unreasonable
in me to desert the people during such a dis-
turbance, and not to endanger ntiyself in their
behalf; therefore I sat down upon my throne,
and desired the Deacon to read a Psalm,
and the people to answer, ' For His mercy
endureth for ever^,' and then all to withdraw
and depart home. But the General having now
9 Hisi. A rian. §§ 33, 67. 1° Ex. xv. 9. ^ Is. v. 20.
2 John vi. 68. 3 ApoL Const. 25. 4 Ps. cxxxvi. i
[on psalmody at Alexandria, cf. Aug. Conf, x. 33.]
264
APOLOGIA DE FUGA.
made a forcible entry, and the soldiers hav-
ing surrounded the sanctuary for the purpose
of apprehending us, the Clergy and those of
the laity, who were still there, cried out, and
demanded that we too should withdraw. But
I refused, declaring that I would not do so,
until they had retired one and all. Accord-
ingly I stood up, and having bidden prayer, I
then made my request of them, that all should
depart before me, saying that it was better
that my safety should be endangered, than
that any of them should receive hurt. So
when the greater part had gone forth, and
the rest were following, the monks who were
there with us and certain of the Clergy came
up and dragged us away. And thus (Truth
is my witness), while some of the soldiers
stood about the sanctuary, and others were
going round the Church, we passed through,
under the Lord's guidance, and with His pro-
tection withdrew without observation, greatly
glorifying God that we had not betrayed the
people, but had first sent them away, and then
had been able to save ourselves, and to escape
the hands of them which sought after us.
25. Athanasms's wonderful escape.
Now when Providence had delivered us in
such an extraordinary manner, who can justly
lay any blame upon me, because we did not
give ourselves up into the hands of them that
sought after us, nor return and present our-
selves before them? This would have been
plainly to shew ingratitude to the Lord, and to
act against His commandment, and in contra-
diction to the practice of the Saints. He who
censures me in this matter must presume also
to blame the great Apostle Peter, because
though he was shut up and guarded by soldiers,
he followed the angel that summoned him, and
when he had gone forth from the prison and
escaped in safety, he did not return and sur-
render himself, although he heard what Herod
had done. Let the Arian in his madness
censure the Apostle Paul, because when he
was let down from the wall and had escaped
in safety, he did not change his mind, and
return and give himself up ; or Moses, because
he returned not out of Midian into Egypt,
that he might be taken of them that sought
after him ; or David, because when he was
concealed in the cave, he did not discover
himself to Saul. As also the sons of the
prophets remained in their caves, and did not
surrender themselves to Ahab. This would
have been to act contrary to the command-
ment, since the Scripture says, *Thou shalt
not tempt the Lord thy Gods.'
26. He acted according to the example of the
Saints. Character of his accusers.
Being careful to avoid such an offence, and
instructed by these examples, I so ordered
my conduct ; and I do not undervalue the
favour and the help which have been shewn me
of the Lord, howsoever these in their madness
may gnash their teeth s* against us. For since
the manner of our retreat was such as we have
described, I do not think that any blame
whatever can attach to it in the minds of those
who are possessed of a sound judgment: seeing
that according to holy Scripture, this pattern
has been left us by the Saints for our instruc-
tion. But there is no atrocity, it would seem,
which these men neglect to practise, nor will
they leave anything undone wliich may shew
their own wickedness and cruelty. And in-
deed their lives are only in accordance with
their spirit and the follies of their doctrines ;
for there are no sins that one could charge
them with, how heinous soever, that they do
not commit without shame. Leontius^ for in-
stance, being censured for his intimacy with
a certain young woman, named Eustolium,
and prohibited from living with her, mutilated
himself for her sake, in order that he might
be able to associate with her freely. He did
not however clear himself from suspicion, but
rather on this account he was degraded from
his rank as Presbyter. [Although the heretic
Constantius by violence caused him to be
named a Bishop?.] Narcissus^, besides being
charged with many other transgressions, was
degraded three times by different Councils ;
and now he is among them, most wicked man.
And George9, who was a Presbyter, was
deposed for his wickedness, and although
he had nominated himself a Bishop, he was
nevertheless a second time deposed in the
great Council of Sardica. And besides all
this, his dissolute life was notorious, for he is
condemned even by his own friends, as making
the end of existence, and its happiness, to con-
sist in the commission of the most disgraceful
crimes.
27. Conclusion.
Thus each surpasses the other in his own
peculiar vices But there is a common blot
that attaches to them all, in that through their
heresy they are enemies of Christ, and are no
5 Deut. vi. 16 ; Matt. iv. 7-
S» Sent. Dion. 16. Hist. Ar. §§ 68. 72.
6 Hist. Arian. § 28 [but see D.C.B. iii. 688].
7 [The bracketed passage is omitted by some good witnesses to
the text. The respectful tone of the 'Apology to Const.' is ex-
changed for cold reserve in this 'Apology,' and for unmeasured
invective in Hist. Ar.] 8 £)g Sjyn. 17, &c.
9 A^oi, Ar. 8, note 3.
DEFENCE OF HIS FLIGHT.
265
longer called Christians'", but Arians. They
ought indeed to accuse each other of the sins
they are guilty of, for they are contrary to the
faith of Christ ; but they rather conceal them
for their own sakes. And it is no wonder, that
being possessed of such a spirit, and impli-
cated in such vices, they persecute and seek
after those who follow not the same impious
heresy as themselves ; that they delight to
destroy them, and are grieved if they fail of
obtaining their desires, and think themselves
injured, as I said before, when they see those
alive whom they wish to perish. May they
continue to be injured in such sort, that they
may lose the power of inflicting injuries, and
»o Vid. supr. Ep. Mg. zoinfr. Hist. Arian. %% 17. 34 fin. 41 init.
59 fin. 64 init. De. Deer. 16, note 5.
that those whom they persecute may give
thanks unto the T^ord, and say in the words
of the twenty-sixth Psalm, 'The Lord is my
light and my salvation ; whom then shall I
fear? The Lord is the strength of my life ;
of whom then shall I be afraid ? When the
wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came
upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled
and fell" ;' and again the thirtieth Psalm, 'Thou
hast saved my soul from adversities; thou
hast not shut me up into the hands of mine
enemies ; thou hast set my foot in a large
room'^,' in Christ Jesus our Lord, through
whom to the Father in the Holy Spirit be
glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.
" Ps xxvii.i.
** Ps. xxxi. 7, 8.
HISTORIA ARIANORUM.
(Written 358.)
This History takes up the narrative from the admission of Arius to communion at the
'dedication' synod of Jerusalem (adjourned Council of Tyre) in 335, as described in Apol.
c Ar. 84. It has been commonly assumed from its abrupt beginning (the ravra, referring
to an antecedent narrative) that the History has lost its earlier chapters, which contained the
story of Arianism ab ovo. Montfaucon suggests in fact that the copyists omitted the first
chapters on account of their identity in substance with the great Apology. But this seems
to require reconsideration. If the alleged missing chapters were different ^ in form from the
second part of the Apology, they would not have been omitted : for such repetitions of the
same matter in other words are very frequent in the works of Athanasius : but if they were
identical in form, they are not lost, and the conclusion is that the History was written with
the express intention of continuing the Apology. The customary inference from the abrupt
commencement of the History may be dismissed with a non sequitur. Such a commencement
was natural under the circumstances : we may compare the case of Xenophon, whose ' Hel-
lenica ' begin with the words Mera 6e raOra, oh TToXXatf ^fiepais varepov . . ., the reference being
to the end of the history of Thucydides. The view here maintained is clinched by the fact
that Athanasius at this very time reissued his Apology against the Arians with an appendix
(§§ ^9' 90) on the lapse of Hosius and Liberius 2.
The History of the Arians, then, is a complete work, and written to continue the narrative
of the second part of the Apology. Being in fact a manifesto against Constantius, it naturally
takes up the tale just before his entry upon the scene as the patron of Arianism. The substan-
tially Athanasian authorship of the History cannot be questioned. The writer occasionally,
hke many others ancient and modern, speaks of himself in the third person (references § 21,
note 5, see also Orat. i. 3) ; but in other places he clearly identifies himself with Athanasius.
The only passage which appears to distinguish the writer from Athanasius (§ 52, see note),
may be due to the bishop's habitual {Apoi. Const. 11) employment of an amanuensis, but more
probably the text is corrupt; in any case the passage cannot weigh against the clear sense
of § 21. The wwiediate Athanasian authorship of the piece has been questioned partly on the
ground of its alleged incompleteness, partly on that of several slight discrepancies with other
writings. On this twofold ground it is inferred that the Arian History has passed through
some obscure process of re-editing (Gwatkin, Studies, p. 99, § 14 'dependent on the Vita
[Antonii] 86,' p. 127, 'not an uncorrupted work') by a later hand. I am quite unconvinced
of this. The incompleteness of the work is, as I think I have shewn above, an unnecessary
hypothesis, while the mistakes or inconsistencies may well be due to circumstances of com-
position. It was written in hiding, perhaps while moving from place to place, certainly under
more pressure of highly wrought agitation and bitterness of spirit than any other work of
Athanasius. The most accurate of men when working at leisure make strange slips at times
(^•§- § ^3) note 4) ; the mistakes in the History are not more than one might expect in such
a work. The principal are, § 21 (see note 3), § 14 (reference in note 8), § 11, irplv yevivQai raiira
(cf. Encycl. 5), § 47 (inverting order of events in § 39).
The date of the History is at first sight a difficulty. The fall of Liberius is dealt with in
Part v., which must therefore have been written not earlier than 358 (the exact chronology
of the lapse of Liberius is not certain), while yet in § 4 Leontius, who died in the summer or
autumn of 357, is still bishop of Antioch. We must therefore suppose that the History was
begun at about the time when the Apologia de Fuga was finished (cf. the bitter conclusion
i.e. slight modificationb excepted, see Montf. in Migne, P.G. xxv. 318, note 46, and 389, note Co.
3 For another example of hastily inferred mutilation, see § 48, note 3.
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS. 267
of that tract) and completed when the lapse of Liberius was known in Egypt. A more
accurate determination of date is not permitted by our materials.
The tract before us is in effect a fierce anonymous pamphlet against Constantius. Even
apart from the references in the letters to the Monks and to Serapion (see below), the work
bears clear marks of having been intended for secret circulation (for the practice, see Fialon,
pp. ip-j — igg). 'Instead of the "pious" Emperor who was so well versed in Scripture, whose
presence would gladden a dedication festival, whose well-known humanity forbade the
supposition that he could have perpetrated a deliberate injustice, we find a Costyllius
(or " Connikin ") whose misdeeds could only be palliated by the imbecility which rendered
him the slave of his own servants — inhuman towards his nearest of kin, — false and crafty,
a Pharaoh, a Saul, an Ahab, a Belshazzar, more cruel than Pilate or Maximian, ignorant
of the Gospels, a patron of heresy, a precursor of Antichrist, an enemy of Christ, as if himself
Antichrist, and — the words must be written — self-abandoned to the future doom of fire*
(Bright, Introd. p. Ixxviii., and see §§ 9, 30, 32, 34, 40, 45> 46, 5}> 53, 67—7°, 74, 80). There
are certainly many passages which one could wish that Athanasius had not written, — one, not
necessary to specify, in which he fully condescends to the coarse brutality of the age, mingling
it unpardonably with holy things. But Athanasius was human, and exasperated by inhuman
vindictiveness and perfidy. If in the passages referred to he falls below himself, and speaks
in the spirit of his generation, there are not wanting passages equal in nobility to anything he
ever wrote. Once more to quote Dr. Bright : ' The beautiful description of the Archbishop's
return from his second exile, and of its moral and religious effect upon Alexandrian Church
society (25), the repeated protests against the principle of persecution as alien to the mind of
the Church of Christ (29, 33, 67), the tender allusion to sympathy for the poor as instinctive
in human nature (63), the vivid picture — doubtless somewhat coloured by imagination — of
the stand made by Western bishops, and notably for a time by Liberius, against the tyrannous
dictation of Constantius in matters ecclesiastical (34 s^^. 76), the generous estimate of Hosius
and Liberius in the hour of their infirmity (41, 45), the three golden passages which describe
the union maintained by a common faith and a sincere affecdon between friends who are
separated from each other (40), the all-sufificient presence of God with His servants in their
extremest solitude (47), and the future joy when heaven would be to sufferers for the truth as
a calm haven to sailors after a storm (79). It is in such contexts that we see the true
Athanasius, and touch the source of his magnificent insuperable constancy' (p. Ixxix.).
Nothing could be more just, or more happily put. It ought to be noted before leaving this
part of the subject, that the language put into the mouth of Constantius and the Arians
(33 fin., I, 3, 9, 12, 15, 30, 42, 45, 60), is not so much a report of their words as 'a repre-
sentation ad invidiam of what is assumed to have been in their minds.' Other instances of
this are to be found in Athanasius {Ep. JEg. 18, Orat. iii. 17), and he uses the device
advisedly {de Syn. 7, middle).
The letter to Serapion on the death of Arius, and the letter to Monks, which in MSB. and
printed editions are prefixed to this treatise, will be found in the collection of letters below
(No. 54 and 52). They have been removed from their time-honoured place in accordance with
the general arrangement of this volume, though not without hesitation, and apart from
any intention to dogmatise on the relation they bear to the present tract.
The ' Arian History ' has commonly been called the * Hist. Arianorum ad Monachos,*
or even the ' Epistola ad Monachos ; ' even at the present day it is sometimes cited simply as
' ad Monachos.' The History has derived this title from the fact, that in the Codices and
editions, the Letter and History are frequently joined together without any sign of division.
At the same time the correctness of this collocation is not entirely free from doubt.
Serapion {Letter 54 § i) had written to Athanasius asking for three things, — a history of
recent events relating to himself, an expose of the Arian heresy, and an exact account of the
death of Arius. The latter Athanasius furnishes in the letter just referred to. For the two
former, he refers Serapion to a document he had written for the monks {anep eypa^a toTj
fjLovaxoli), and which he now sends to Serapion. He begs Serapion at the end of his letter
not on any account to part with the letters he has received, nor to copy them (he gave, he
adds, the same directions to the monks, cf Letter 52. 3), but to send them back with such
corrections and additions as he might think desirable. He refers him to his letter to the
monks for an explanation of the circumstances which render this precaution necessary. The
monks {ib. 1) had apparently made the same request as Serapion afterwards made. It
has been conjectured that the four ' Orations ' against Arianism, or the first three, are the
treatise on the heresy addressed to the monks and subsequently sent to Serapion. But tb.o
268 HISTORIA ARIANORUM.
description of that treatise eypayJAa 8i d\iy(ov {Letter 52. 1) is quite inapplicable to the longest
treatise extant among the works of Athanasius. Still less, even if the Arian History were
a fragment (see above), could we suppose that the accompanying treatise formed the missing
first part. We must therefore acquiesce in the conclusion that the treatise in question has
perished. Accordingly we cannot be sure (although it is generally regarded as highly
probable 3) that the historical portion is preserved to us in the ' Arian History.' In any case
the Letter to Monks is quite unconnected with it in its subject matter, and ends with the
blessing, as the History does with the doxology, in the form of an independent document.
While admitting, therefore, the naturalness of the traditional arrangement, we may
fairly treat the two as distinct, and permit the Arian History to launch the reader with-
out preamble in medias res.
As the tract is long, and various in its subject-matter, the following scheme of contents
may be found useful. It will be noted that chronological order is observed in Parts I. — IV.,
i.e. till 355, when the existing persecution of Constantius, the main theme of the History
{Letter 52, § i), is reached. The history of this persecution is dealt with (Parts V. — VII.) with
much more fulness, and is grouped round subjects each of which covers more or less the same
period. Part VIII. deals with the more recent events in Egypt.
PART I. Proceedings of the Arians from the Council of Tyre till the return of the
Exiles (335— 337).
§§ I — 3. General character of their proceedings.
§§4 — 7- Persecution of the orthodox bishops.
§ 8. Restoration of the exiles after Constantine's deatli.
PART II. Second Exile of Athanasius, till the Council of Sardica (337 — 343).
§ 9. Renewed intrigues against Athanasius.
§ 10. Gregory intruded by Constantius as bishop.
§ II. Athanasius at Rome. Negotiations for a Council there.
§§ 12 — 14. Violent proceedings of Gregory. Case of Duke Balacins.
PART III. From Sardica till the Death of Constans (343—350).
§ 15. The meeting of the S3mod. Dismay of the Arianising bishops.
§ 16. Their flight from the Synod.
§17. Proceedings of the Synod.
§§ 18, 19. Continued persecution after it.
§ 20. The infamous plot of Stephen against the Sardican legates at Antioch.
§§21, 22. Constantius changes his mind and recalls Athanasius with a solemn oath to defend him for the
future.
§§ 23, 24. Letters of Constantius at this time*
§25. Return of Athanasius (346).
§ 26. Recantation of Valens and Ursacius.
§ 27. Peace and joy of the Church.
PART IV. From the Death of Constans to the Council of Milan (351 — 355),
§ 28. Renewed intrigues of the Arianising party.
§§ 29, 30. Valens, Ursacius, and the Emperor return to Arianism.
§§ 3I) 32- Constantius again persecutes the Church.
§ 33- Wickedness of persecution. Western bishops banished by Constantius [at Milan].
§ 34. How they diffused the truth wherever they went.
PART V. Liberius (355—358).
§§ 35 — 37. Firmness of Liberius and rage of Constantius.
§ 38. Concerning the eunuchs at the Court.
§§ 39, 40. Liberius rebukes the Emperor and is cruelly exiled.
§ 41. After two years of exile, Liberius gives way under forcew
PART VI. Hosius (355-358).
§ 42. Intrigues against Hosius.
§ 43- Vain attempts of Constantius to gain him over.
§ 44. Letter of Hosius remonstrating with the Emperor.
§§ 45> 46. Lapse of Hosius, his fidelity to Athanasius, recantation, and death.
§ 47. Monstrosity of the above proceedings.
See Eichhorn, p. 6i ; Bright, p. Ixxiv.
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS. 269
PART VII. The attacks upon Athanasius (351—356).
§ 47. Athanasius isolated by the exile of other bishops.
§ 48. Attacks upon Athanasius himself (353 — 356).
§§ 49> (50). 5^- Hypocrisy of the Emperor's pretended regard for his Father and Brother*
§§ 52, 53- Impropriety of Imperial intervention in Church affairs.
§ 54. The Churches at Alexandria given to the Arians.
§ 55. Violence of Cataphronius, Prefect of Egypt.
§§ 56, 57. Sack of the great church : divine judgments.
§ 58. Scenes of persecution.
§§ 59> 60. Savagery of Duke Sebastian. Martyrdom of EutycWus (356).
§§ 61 — 63. Cruel treatment of the poor, and of the clergy.
PART VlII. Further details of the Persecution in Egypt (357).
§ 64. The Arian persecution more cruel than that of Maximian.
§65. Martyrdom of Secundus of Barka.
§§ 66, 67. Persecution the disgrace of the new heresy.
§§ 68, 69. Constantius worse than Ahab, &c., and inhuman toward his own family
§ 70. His fickleness, lack of character, and tyranny.
§ 71. Novelty of this persecution on the part of pretended Christians.
§ 72. Cruel exile of bishops and torture of monks and lay people.
§ 73- Venal appointments to fill the vacancies thus created.
§ 74. The predicted signs of Antichrist applied to Constantius.
§ 75. Arrival of George at Alexandria.
§§ 76, 77. Further marks of Antichrist in the tyranny of Constantius over the Chnidi.
§§ 78, 79. The Meletians the allies of Arianism in Egypt.
§ 80. Duty of separating from heretics.
9 81. Appendix to § 48. Second protest of the Church of Alexandria against the proceedings of
Syrianus (356).
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS
PART I.
Arian Persecution under Constantine.
1. And not long after they put in execution
the designs for the sake of which they had
had recourse to these artifices ; for they no
sooner had formed their plans, but they im-
mediately admitted Arius and his fellows to
communion. They set aside the repeated
condemnations which had been passed upon
them, and again pretended the imperial au-
thority' in their behalf. And they were not
ashamed to say in their letters, * since Athana-
sius suffered, all jealousy ^ has ceased, and let
us henceforward receive Arius and his fel-
lows;' adding, in order to frighten their hearers,
'because the Emperor has commanded it.'
Moreover, they were not ashamed to add, ' for
these men profess orthodox opinions ;' not fear-
ing that which is written, ' Woe unto them that
call bitter sweet, that put darkness for light 3 ;'
for they are ready to undertake anything in
support of their heresy. Now is it not hereby
plainly proved to all men, that we both suf-
fered heretofore, and that you now persecute
us, not under the authority of an Ecclesiastical
sentence ^, but on the ground of the Emperor's
threats, and on account of our piety towards
Christ? As also they conspired in like man-
ner against other Bishops, fabricating charges
against them also ; some of whom fell asleep
in the place of their exile, having attained the
glory of Christian confession ; and others are
still banished from their country, and con-
tend still more and more manfully against their
heresy, saying, ' Nothing shall separate us from
the love of Christ s?'
2. Arians sacrifice morality and integrity
to party.
And hence also you may discern its char-
' 8 33. 2 (peSvos. 3 Is. V. ao.
4 Infr. § 76. 5 Rom. viii. 35.
acter, and be able to condemn it more con-
fidently. The man who is their friend and
their associate in impiety, although he is open
to ten thousand charges for other enormities
which he has committed ; although the evi-
dence and proof against him are most clear ;
he is approved of by them, and straightway
becomes the friend of the Emperor, obtaining
an introduction by his impiety ; and making
very many pretences, he acquires confidence
before the magistrates to do whatever he desires.
But he who exposes their impiety, and honestly
advocates the cause of Christ, though he is
pure in all things, though he is conscious of no
delinquencies, though he meets with no ac-
cuser ; yet on the false pretences which they
have framed against him, is immediately seized
and sent into banishment under a sentence of
the Emperor, as if he were guilty of the crimes
which they wish to charge upon him, or as
if, like Naboth, he had insulted the King ;
while he who advocates the cause of their
heresy is sought for and immediately sent to
take possession of the other's Church ; and
henceforth confiscations and insults, and all
kinds of cruelty are exercised against those
who do not receive him. And what is the
strangest of all, the man whom the people
desire, and know to be blameless^, the Em-
peror takes away and banishes ; but him whom
they neither desire, nor know, he sends to
them from a distant place with soldiers and
letters from himself. And henceforward a
strong necessity is laid upon them, either to
hate him whom they love ; who has been their
teacher, and their father in godliness ; and to
love him whom they do not desire, and to
trust their children to one of whose life and
conversation and character they are ignorant;
or else certainly to suffer punishment, if they
disobey the Emperor.
* I Tim. iii. a.
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS.
271
3. Recklessness of their proceedings.
In this manner the impious are now pro-
ceeding, as heretofore, against the orthodox ;
giving proof of their mahce and impiety
amongst all men everywhere. For granting
that they have accused Athanasius ; yet what
have the other Bishops done ? On what
grounds can they charge them ? Has there
been found in their case too the dead body of
an Arsenius ? Is there a Presbyter Macarius,
or has a cup been broken amongst them ?
Is there a Meletian to play the hypocrite?
No : but as their proceedings against the other
Bishops shew the charges which they have
brought against Athanasius, in all probability,
to be false ; so their attacks upon Athanasius
make it plain, that their accusations of the
other Bishops are unfounded likewise. This
heresy has come forth ' upon the earth like
some great monster, which not only injures the
innocent with its words, as with teeth ^ ; but it
has also hired external power to assist it in its
designs. And strange it is that, as I said be-
fore, no accusation is brought against any of
them ; or if any be accused, he is not brought
to trial ; or if a shew of enquiry be made, he
is acquitted against evidence, while the con-
victing party is plotted against, rather than the
culprit put to shame. Thus the whole party
■of them is full of idleness; and their spies, for
Bishops ^ they are not, are the vilest of them
all. And if any one among them desire to
become a Bishop, he is not told, *a Bishop
must be blameless 9;' but only, 'Take up
opinions contrary to Christ, and care not for
manners. This will be sufificient to obtain
favour for you, and friendship with the Em-
peror.' Such is the character of those who
support the tenets of Arius. And they who
are zealous for the truth, however holy and
pure they shew themselves, are yet, as I said
before, made culprits, whenever these men
choose, and on whatever pretences it may
seem good to them to invent. The truth of
this, as I before remarked, you may clearly
gather from their proceedings.
4. Arians persecute Eustathius and others.
There was one Eustathius ^, Bishop of An-
tioch, a Confessor, and sound in the Faith.
This man, because he was very zealous for the
truth, and hated the Arian heresy, and would
not receive those who adopted its tenets, is
falsely accused before the Emperor Constan-
tine, and a charge invented against him, that
he had insulted his mother ^ And immedi-
7 Vid. Dan, vii. 5, 7. * Cf. § 49. [The play on words cannot
be rendered.] 9 i Tim. iii. 2. ' Apol. Fug. 3, note 9.
' If the common slander of the day concerning S. Helena was
ately he is driven into banishment, and a great
number of Presbyters and Deacons with him.
And immediately after the banishment of the
Bishop, those whom he would not admit into
the clerical order on account of their impiety-
were not only received into the Church by
them, but were even appointed the greater
part of them to be Bishops, in order that they
might have accomplices in their impiety.
Among these was Leontius the eunuch 3, now
of Antioch, and his predecessor Stephanus,
George of Laodicea, and Theodosius who was
of Tripolis, Eudoxius of Germanicia, and Eu-
stathius 4, nov^ of Sebastia.
5. Did they then stop here ? No. For Eutro-
pius s, who was Bishop of Adrianople, a good
man, and excellent in all respects, because he
had often convicted Eusebius, and had ad-
vised them who came that way, not to comply
with his impious dictates, suffered the same
treatment as Eustathius, and was cast out of
his city and his Church. Basilina^ was the
most active in the proceedings against him.
And Euphration of Balanea, Kymatius of
Paltus, Carterius of Antaradus ^*, Asclepas of
Gaza, Cyrus of Beroea in Syria, Diodorus of
Asia, Domnion of Sirmium, and Ellanicus of
Tripolis, were merely known to hate the
heresy ; and some of them on one pretence or
another, some without any, they removed under
the authority of royal letters, drove them out
of their cities, and appointed others whom they
knew to be impious men, to occupy the
Churches in their stead.
6. Case of Marcellus.
Of Marcellus 7, the Bishop of Galatia, it is
perhaps superfluous for me to speak ; for all
men have heard how Eusebius and his fellows,
who had been first accused by him of impiety,
brought a counter-accusation against him, and
caused the old man to be banished. He
went up to Rome, and there made his defence,
and being required by them, he offered a
written declaration of his faith, of which the
Council of Sardica approved. But Eusebius
and his fellows made no defence, nor, when
they were convicted of impiety out of their
writings, were they put to shame, but rather
assumed greater boldness against all. For
imputed to S. Eustathius, Constantine was likely to feel it keenly.
' Stabulariam,' says S, Ambrose, ' hanc primo fuisse asserunt, sic
cognitam Constantio.' de Ob. Theod. 42, Stabularia, i,e, an inn-
keeper ; so Rahab is sometimes considered to be ' cauponaria sive
tabernaria et meretrix/ Cornel, a Lap. in Jos, ii, i. ef o/xiAias
•yvi'tttKos ou (re/u-vrj? ovfie Kara vbfxoi' trvi'eA^oucnj?. Zosim, Hist, iL
p. 78. Constantmus ex concubina Helena procreatus, Hieron,
in Chron. Euseb. ^.TTi- (ed. Vallars.) Tillemont however main-
tains {Empereurs, t, 4. p. 613), and Gibbon fully admits {Hist.
ch, 14. p. 190), the legitimacy of Constantine. The latter adds,
' Eutropius (x, 2.) expresses in a few words the real truth, and the
occasion of the error, "ex obscuriori matritnonio ejus filius."'
[Cf. Soz.'iu 19.] 3 Below, § 28, note. ■' Ep. ^g. 7,
5 Ap. Fug. 3, * Juhan's mother, ** [The text must
be corrected thus ; see Apol. Fug. 3.] 7 Apol. Ar. 32.
272
HISTORIA ARIANORUM.
they had an introduction to the Emperor from
the women ^, and were formidable to all men.
7. Martyrdom of Paul of Constantinople.
And I suppose no one is ignorant of the
case of Paul 9, Bishop of Constantinople ; for
the more illustrious any city is, so much the
more that which takes place in it is not con-
cealed. A charge was fabricated against him
also. For Macedonius his accuser, who has
now become Bishop in his stead (I was present
myself at the accusation), afterwards held com-
munion with him, and was a Presbyter under
Paul himself And yet when Eusebius with
an evil eye wished to seize upon the Bishopric
of that city (he had been translated in the
same manner from Berytus to Nicomedia), the
charge was revived against Paul ; and they did
not give up their plot, but persisted in the
calumny. And he was banished first into
Pontus by Constantine, and a second time by
Constantius he was sent bound with iron
chains to Singara in Mesopotamia, and from
thence transferred to Emesa, and a fourth
time he was banished to Cucusus in Cap-
padocia, near the deserts of Mount Taurus ;
where, as those who were with him have
declared, he died by strangulation at their
hands. And yet these men who never speak
the truth, though guilty of this, were not
ashamed after his death to invent another
story, representing that he had died from
illness ; although all who live in that place
know the circumstances. And even Philagrius ',
who was then Deputy-Governor ^ of those
parts, and represented all their proceedings in
such manner as they desired, was yet astonished
at this ; and being grieved perhaps that an-
other, and not himself, had done the evil deed,
he informed Serapion the Bishop, as well as
many other of our friends, that Paul was shut
up by them in a very confined and dark place,
and left to perish of hunger ; and when after
six days they went in and found him still
alive, they immediately set upon the man, and
strangled him. This was the end of his life ;
and they said that Philip who was Prefect was
their agent in the perpetration of this murder.
Divine Justice, however, did not overlook this ;
for not a year passed, when Philip was de-
prived of his office in great disgrace, so that
being reduced to a private station, he became
the mockery of those whom he least desired to
be the witnesses of his fall. For in extreme
8 i.e. Constantia. Constantine's sister. '
9 Ap. Fug. \. [For the presence of Ath. at CP. in 337, see
Prolegg. ii. § s fin.]
I [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. § 6 (x) note 3.]
= Vicarius, i.e. 'vicarius Praefecti, agens vicem Praefecti;'
Gothofred in Cod. Tkeod. i. tit. 6. vid. Uieir office, &&, drawn
out at length, ibid. t. 6, p. 334.
distress of mind, groaning and trembling like
Cain 3j and expecting every day that some one
would destroy him, far from his country and
his friends, he died, like one astounded at his
misfortunes, in a manner that he least desired.
Moreover these men spare not even after
death those against whom they have invented
charges whilst living. They are so eager to
shew themselves formidable to all, that they
banish the living, and shew no mercy on the
dead ; but alone of all the world they manifest
their hatred to them that are departed, and
conspire against their friends, truly inhuman
as they are, and haters of that which is good,
savage in temper beyond mere enemies, in
behalf of their impiety, who eagerly plot the
ruin of me and of all the rest, with no regard
to truth, but by false charges.
8. Restoration, of the Catholics.
Perceiving this to be the case, the three
brothers, Constantine, Constantius, and Con-
stans, caused all after the death of their father
to return to their own country and Church ;
and while they wrote letters concerning the
rest to their respective Churches, concerning
Athanasius they wrote the following ; which
likewise shews the violence of the whole pro-
ceedings, and proves the murderous dispo-
sition of Eusebius and his fellows.
A copy of the Letter of Constantine Ccesar to the
people of the Catholic Church in the city of
the Alexandrians.
I suppose that it has not escaped the know-
ledge of your pious minds ^, &c
This is his letter ; and what more credible
witness of their conspiracy could there be than
he, who knowing these circumstances has thus
written of them ?
PART II.
First Arian Persecution under
Constantius.
9. Eusebius and his fellows, however, seeing
the declension of their heresy, wrote to Rome,
as well as to the Emperors Constantine and
Constans, to accuse ' Athanasius : but when
the persons who were sent by Athanasius dis-
proved the statements which they had written,
they were put to shame by the Emperors ; and
Julius, Bishop of Rome, wrote to say' that
a Council ought to be held, wherever we
should desire, in order that they might exhibit
the charges which they had to make, and
might also freely defend themselves concern-
ing those things of which they too were ac-
cused. The Presbyters also who were sent by
3 Gen. iv. 12, LXX. supr. p. 241. 4 Given above, A^l.
cofitr. Arian. % 87. ' Apol. c. Ar. 3. 2 lb. ao.
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS.
273
them, when they saw themselves making an
exposure, requested that this might be done.
Whereupon these men, whose conduct is sus-
picious in all that they do, when they see that
they are not likely to get the better in an Eccle-
siastical trial, betake themselves to Constantius
alone, and thenceforth bewail themselves, as
to the patron of their heresy. ' Spare,' they
say, ' the heresy ; you see that all men have
withdrawn from us; and very few of us are
now left. Begin to persecute, for we are being
deserted even of those few, and are left desti-
tute. Those persons whom we forced over to
our side, when these men were banished, they
now by their return have persuaded again to
take part against us. Write letters therefore
against them all, and send out Philagrius
a second time 3 as Prefect of Egypt, for he is
able to carry on a persecution favourably for
us, as he has already shewn upon trial, and the
more so, as he is an apostate. Send also
Gregory as Bishop to Alexandria, for he too is
able to strengthen our heresy.'
10. Violent Intrusion of Gregory.
Accordingly Constantius at once writes
letters, and commences a persecution against
all, and sends Philagrius as Prefect with one
Arsacius an eunuch ; he sends also Gregory
with a military force. And the same con-
sequences followed as before l For gathering
together a multitude of herdsmen and shep-
herds, and other dissolute youths belonging to
the town, armed with swords and clubs, they
attacked in a body the Church which is called
the Church of Quirinus s ; and some they slew,
some they trampled under foot, others they
beat with stripes and cast into prison or
banished. They haled away many women
alsd, and dragged them openly into the court,
and insulted them, dragging them by the hair.
Some they proscribed ; from some they took
away their bread ^ for no other reason, but
that they might be induced to join the Arians,
and receive Gregory, who had been sent by the
Emperor.
1 1. The Easterns decline the Council at Rome.
Athanasius, however, before these things hap-
pened^", at the first report of their proceedings,
sailed to Rome, knowing the rage of the here-
tics, and for the purpose of having the Council
held as had been determined. And Julius
wrote letters to them, and sent the Presbyters
Elpidius and Philoxenus, appointing a day?,
that they might either come, or consider them-
3 § 7, note I, Encycl. 3. 4 Upon the Commission, Aiol.
Ar. IS- 5 'Cyrinus. «> Vid. infr. § 63.
*" [A misstatement, cf. supra pp. 91, 95, note 1.]
7 Trpoeeo-fiiai/, Apol. Ar. 25, note 6 \,K.D. 340].
VOL. IV. \
selves as altogether suspected persons. But
as soon as Eusebius and his fellows heard
that the trial was to be an Ecclesiastical one,
at which no Count would be present, nor
soldiers stationed before the doors, and that
the proceedings would not be regulated by
royal order (for they have always depended
upon these things to support them against the
Bishops, and without them they have no bold-
ness even to speak); they were so alarmed that
they detained the Presbyters till after the ap-
pointed time, and pretended an unseemly
excuse, that they were not able to come now
on account of the war which was begun by the
Persians ^. But this was not the true cause of
their delay, but the fears of their own con-
sciences. For what have Bishops to do with
war ? Or if they were unable on account of
the Persians to come to Rome, although it is at
a distance and beyond sea, why did they like
lions9 go about the parts of the East and those
which are near the Persians, seeking who was
opposed to them, that they might falsely accuse
and banish them ?
12. At any rate, when they had dismissed the
Presbyters with this improbable excuse, they
said to one another, * Since we are unable to
get the advantage in an Ecclesiastical trial, let
us exhibit our usual audacity.' Accordingly
they write to Philagrius, and cause him after a
while to go out with Gregory into Egypt.
Whereupon the Bishops are severely scourged
and cast into chains\ Sarapammon, for in-
stance. Bishop and Confessor, they drive into
banishment ; Potammon, Bishop and Con-
fessor, who had lost an eye in the persecu-
tion, they beat with stripes on the neck so
cruelly, that he appeared to be dead before
they came to an end. In which condition
he was cast aside, and hardly after some
hours, being carefully attended and fanned,
he revived, God granting him his life ; but
a short time after he died of the sufferings
caused by the stripes, and attained in Christ to
the glory of a second martyrdom. And besides
these, how many monks were scourged, while
Gregory sat by with Balacius the ' Duke 1 *
how many Bishops were wounded I how many
virgins were beaten 1
13. Cruelties of Gregory at Alexandria.
After this the wretched Gregory called upon
all men to have communion with him. But if
thou didst demand of them communion, they
were not worthy of stripes : and if thou didst
scourge them as if evil persons, why didst thou
ask it of them as if holy ? But he had no other
end in view, except to fulfil the designs of them
8 Apol. Ar.2S, note 8. 9 i Pet. v. 8. * A/i>i. A r. 30 and foil.
274
HISTORIA ARIANORUJM.
that sent him, and to establish the heresy.
Wherefore he became in his folly a murderer
and an executioner, injurious, crafty, and pro-
fane ; in one word, an enemy of Christ. He so
cruelly persecuted the Bishop's aunt, that even
when she died he would not suffer her to be
buried ^ And this would have been her lot ;
she would have been cast away without burial,
had not they who attended on the corpse carried
her out as one of their own kindred. Thus
even in such things he shewed his profane
temper. And again when the widows and other
mendicants 3 had received alms, he commanded
what had been given them to be seized, and the
vessels in which they carried their oil and wine
to be broken, that he might not only shew
impiety by robbery, but in his deeds dishonour
the Lord ; from whom very shortly ♦ he will
hear those words, ' Inasmuch as thou hast dis-
honoured these, thou hast dishonoured Me K'
14. Profaneness of Gregory and death of
Balacius.
And many other things he did, which exceed
the power of language to describe, and which
whoever should hear would think to be incred-
ible. And the reason why he acted thus was,
because he had not received his ordination ac-
cording to ecclesiastical rule, nor had been
called to be a Bishop by apostolical tradition^;
but had been sent out from court with military
power and pomp, as one entrusted with a
secular government. Wherefore he boasted
rather to be the friend of Governors, than of
Bishops and Monks. Whenever, therefore, our
Father Antony wrote to him from the moun-
tains, as godliness is an abomination to a sin-
ner, so he abhorred the letters of the holy man.
But whenever the Emperor, or a General, or
other magistrate, sent him a letter, he was as
much overjoyed as those in the Proverbs, of
whom the Word has said indignantly, 'Woe
unto them who leave the path of uprightness ;
who rejoice to do evil, and delight in the
frowardness of the wicked 7.' And so he
honoured with presents the bearers of these
letters ; but once when Antony wrote to him
he caused Duke Balacius to spit upon the
letter, and to cast it from him. But Divine
Justice did not overlook this ; for no long time
after, when the Duke was on horseback, and
on his way to the first halt % the horse turned
» Cf. Apol. Const. % 27 fin.
3 di/efoSwj/, vid. infr. § 60. Tillemont translates it, prisoners.
Montfaucon has been here followed ; vid. Collect. Nov. t. 2.
p. xliii.
4 oo'oi' ovSeTTO), as § 32. George was pulled to pieces by the
populace, A.D. 362. This was written A d. 358, or later. [There
is the common contusion in this note between Gregory and George.
Gregory had died June 26, 345.] 5 Vid. Matt. xxv. 45.
6 [Prolegg. ch. iv. § 4.] 7 Prov. ii. 13, 14, LXX.
8 fiovrju. vid. supr. Ap. Ar. 29, note 2. This halt or station
which lay up the Nile was called Cereu (K. Atti. § 86^, or Chaereu,
his head, and biting him on the thigh, threw
him off; and within three days he died.
PART III.
Restoration of the Catholics on the
Council of Sardica,
15. While they were proceeding in like mea-
sures towards all, at Rome about fifty Bishops
assembled % and denounced Eusebius and his
fellows as persons suspected, afraid to come,
and also condemned as unworthy of credit
the written statement they had sent ; but us
they received, and gladly embraced our com-
munion. While these things were taking place,
a report of the Council held at Rome, and
of the proceedings against the Churches at
x^lexandria, and through all the East, came
to the hearing of the Emperor Constans 2.
He writes to his brother Constantius, and
immediately they both determine 3 that a
Council shall be called, and matters be brought
to a settlement, so that those who had been
injured may be released from further suffering,
and the injurious be no longer able to perpe-
trate such outrages. Accordingly there assem-
ble at the city of Sardica both from the East
and West to the number of one hundred and
seventy Bishops +, more or less; those who
came from the West were Bishops only, having
Hosius for their father, but those from the East
brought with them instructors of youth and
advocates, Count Musonianus, and Hesychius s
the Castrensian ; on whose account they came
with great alacrity, thinking that everything
would be again managed by their authority.
For thus by means of these persons they have
always shewn themselves formidable to any
whom they wished to intimidate, and have pro-
secuted their designs against whomsoever they
chose. But when they arrived and saw that
the cause was to be conducted as simply an
ecclesiastical one, without the interference of
the Count or of soldiers ; when they saw the
accusers who came from every church and
city, and the evidence which was brought
against them, when they saw the venerable
Bishops Arius and Asterius ^, who came up in
their company, withdrawing from them and sid-
ing with us ^% and giving an account of their
cunning, and how suspicious their conduct
was, and that they were fearing the con-
sequences of a trial, lest they should be Con-
or the land or property of Chaereas, vid. Naz. Orat. 21, 29, who
says it was the place where the people met Athanasius on his
return from exile on Constantius s death. [The incident is related
differently in Vit. Ant. ubi supra: see note there.]
I Apol. Ar. I, note i. * Apol. Const. 4, note 8.
3 Below, § 50.
4 Vid. supr. pp. 127, note 10, and 147.
5 Apol. Ar. 36, notes 8, 9.
« Below, § i8. 6» [Cf. § 31, note 5.!
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS.
275
victed by us of being false informers, and it
should be discovered by those whom they pro-
duced in the character of accusers, that they
had themselves suggested all they were to say,
and were the contrivers of the plot. Perceiving
this to be the case, although they had come
with great zeal, as thinking that we should be
afraid to meet them, yet now when they saw
our alacrity, they shut themselves up in the
Palace 7 (for they had their abode there), and
proceeded to confer with one another in the
following manner : ' We came hither for one
result ; and we see another ; we arrived in
company with Counts, and the trial is pro-
ceeding without them. We are certainly con-
demned. You all know the orders that have
been given. Athanasius and his fellows have
the reports of the proceedings in the Mareotis^,
by which he is cleared, and we are covered with
disgrace. Why then do we delay ? why are we
so slow? Let us invent some excuse and be
gone, or we shall be condemned if we remain.
It is better to suffer the shame of fleeing, than
the disgrace of being convicted as false accusers.
If we flee, we shall find some means of defend-
ing our heresy ; and even if they condemn us
for our flight, still we have the Emperor as our
patron, who will not suffer the people to expel
us from the Churches.'
16. Secession of the Easterns at Sardica,
Thus then they reasoned with themselves :
and Hosius and all the other Bishops repeatedly
signified to them the alacrity of Athanasius and
his fellows, saying, ' They are ready with their
defence, and pledge themselves to prove you
false accusers.' They said also, * If you fear
the trial, why did you come to meet us ? either
you ought not to have come, or now that you
have come, not to flee.' When they heard this,
being still more alarmed, they had recourse to
an excuse even more unseemly than that they
pretended at Antioch, viz. that they betook
themselves to flight because the Emperor had
written to them the news of his victory over
the Persians. And this excuse they were not
ashamed to send by Eustathius a Presbyter of
the Sardican Church. But even thus their flight
did not succeed according to their wishes ; for
immediately the holy Council, of which the
great Hosius was president, wrote to them
plainly, saying, ' Either come forward and
7 The word Palatium sometimes stands for the space or limits
•et apart in cities for the Emperor, Cod. Tkeod, XV. i. 47. some-
times for the buildings upon it, ibid. VII. x. 2, which were one of
the four public works mentioned in the Laws. ibid. XV. i. 35. and
36. None but great officers of state were admitted into it. XV. i.
47. Even the judges might not lodge in it, except there was no
Prajtorium, VII. x. 2. Gothofr. in VII. x. i. enumerates (with
references) the Palatia in Antioch, Daphne, Constantinople, Here-
clea, Milan, Treves, inc. It was a great mark then of imperial
favour that the Eastern bishops were accommodated in the Pa-
latium at Sardica. 8 Apol. Ar. % 83, &c.
answer the charges which are brought against
you, for the false accusations which you have
made against others, or know that the Council
will condemn you as guilty, and declare Atha-
nasius and his fellows free and clear from all
blame.' Whereupon they were rather impelled
to flight by the alarms of conscience, than to
compliance with the proposals of the letter ; for
when they saw those who had been injured by
them, they did not even turn their faces to
listen to their words, but fled with greater
speed.
1 7. Proceedings of the Council of Sardica.
Under these disgraceful and unseemly cir-
cumstances their flight took place. And the
holy Council, which had been assembled out
of more than five and thirty provinces, perceiv-
ing the malice of the Arians, admitted Atha-
nasius and his fellows to answer to the charges
which the others had broutiht against them, and
to declare the sufferings which they had under-
gone. And when they had thus made their
defence, as we said before, they approved and
so highly admired their conduct that they
gladly embraced their communion, and wrote
letters to all quarters, to the diocese of each,
and especially to Alexandria and Egypt, and
the Libyas, declaring Athanasius and his friends
to be innocent, and free from all blame, and
their opponents to be calumniators, evil-doers,
and everything rather than Christians. Accord-
ingly they dismissed them in peace ; but de-
posed Stephanus and Menophantus, Acacius
and George of Laodicea, Ursacius and Valens,
Theodoras and Narcissus. For against Gregory,
who had been sent to Alexandria by the Em-
peror, they put forth a proclamation to the
effect that he had never been made a Bishop,
and that he ought not to be called a Christian.
They therefore declared the ordinations which
he professed to have conferred to be void, and
commanded that they should not be even
named in the Church, on account of their
novel and illegal nature. Thus Athanasius
and his friends were dismissed in peace (the
letters concerning them are inserted at the end
on account of their length 9), and the Council
was dissolved.
1 8. Arian Persecution after Sardica.
But the deposed persons, who ought now to
have remained quiet, with those who had separa-
ted after so disgraceful a flight, were guilty of
such conduct, that their former proceedings
appear trifling in comparison of these. For
when the people of Adrianople would not have
communion with them, as men who had fled
9 Not found there, but in Apol. ccmtf. Ar. %% 37, foil.
T 2
2/6
HISTORIA ARIANORUM
from the Council, and had proved culprits,
they carried their complaints to the Emperor
Constantius, and succeeded in causing ten of
the laity to be beheaded, belonging to the
Manufactory of arms' there, Philagrius, who
was there again as Count, assisting their de-
signs in this matter also. The tombs of these
persons, which we have seen in passing ^^ by,
are in front of the city. Then as if they had
been quite successful, because they had fled
lest they should be convicted of false accusa-
tion, they prevailed with the Emperor to com-
mand whatsoever they wished to be done.
Thus they caused two Presbyters and three
Deacons to be banished .from Alexandria into
Armenia. As to Arius and Asterius, the one
Bishop of Petrse^ in Palestine, the other Bishop
in Arabia, who had withdrawn from their party,
they not only banished into upper Libya, but
also caused them to be treated with insult
19. Tyrannical measures against tJu
Alexandrians.
And as to Lucius 3, Bishop of Adrianople,
when they saw that he used great boldness of
speech against them, and exposed their im-
piety, they again, as they had done before,
caused him to be bound with iron chains on the
neck and hands, and so drove him into banish-
ment, where he died, as they know. And
Diodorus a Bishop * they remove \ but against
Olympius of .^ni, and Theodulus of Traja-
nople s, both Bishops of Thrace, good and
orthodox men, when they perceived their
hatred of the heresy, they brought false
charges. This Eusebius and his fellows had
done first of all, and the Emperor Constan-
tius wrote letters on the subject ; and next
these men ^ revived the accusation. The pur-
port of the letter was, that they should not
only be expelled from their cities and churches,
but should also sufifer capital punishment,
wherever they were discovered. However sur-
prising this conduct may be, it is only in ac-
cordance with their principles; for as being
instructed by Eusebius and his fellows in such
proceedings, and as heirs of their impiety and
evil principles, they wished to shew themselves
formidable at Alexandria, as their fathers had
done in Thrace. They caused an order to be
written, that the ports and gates of the cities
should be watched, lest availing themselves of
the permission granted by the Council, the ban-
I De Fabricis, vid. Gothofr. in Cod. Theod. x. 21.
" [Apparently on his way from Treveri (see 21, n. 3) back to
Alexandria in 346.]
» [See pp. 148, 128 note, and infr., Tom. ad Ant. § 8. In the
text Petrae is wrongly placed in Palestine. The slip is one of
many in this tract ; see Introd. above.]
3 Apol. Ar. 45, Apol. Fug. 3,
4 Of Tenedos, vid. Aj)ol. Ar. 50, supr. \ 5.
% Apol. Ar. ^l^uot^i. ^Acacius, ftc
ished persons should return to their churches.
They also cause orders to be sent to the magis-
trates at Alexandria, respecting Athanasius and
certain Presbyters, named therein, that if either
the Bishop t, or any of the others, should be
found coming to the city or its borders, the
magistrate should have power to behead those
who were so discovered. Thus this w^'f^ Jew-
ish heresy does not only deny the Lord, but has
also learnt to commit murder.
20. Plot against the Catholic Legates at
Antioch.
Yet even after this they did not rest ; but
as the father of their heresy goeth about like
a lion, seeking whom he may devour, so these
obtaining the use of the public posts ^ went
about, and whenever they found any that
reproached them with their flight, and that
hated the x'\rian heresy, they scourged them,
cast them into chains, and caused them to be
banished from their country ; and theyrendered
themselves so formidable, as to induce many
to dissemble, many to fly into the deserts,
rather than willingly even to have any dealings
with them. Such were the enormities which
their madness prompted them to commit after
their flight. Moreover they perpetrate another
outrageous act, which is indeed in accordance
with the character of their heresy, but is such
as we never heard of before, nor is likely soon
to take place again, even among the more
dissolute of the Gentiles, much less among
Christians. The holy Council had sent as
Legates the Bishops Vincentius? of Capua
(this is the Metropolis of Campania), and
Euphrates of Agrippina" (this is the Metro-
polis of Upper Gaul), that they might obtain
the Emperor's consent to the decision of the
Council, that the Bishops should return to
their Churches, inasmuch as he was the author
of their expulsion. The most religious Con-
stans had also written to his brother % and
supported the cause of the Bishops. But these
admirable men, who are equal to any act of
audacity, when they saw the two Legates at
Antioch, consulted together and formed a plot,
which Stephanus * undertook by himself to
execute, as being a suitable instrument for
such purposes. Accordingly they hire a com-
mon harlot, even at the season of the most
holy Easter, and stripping her introduce her by
night into the apartment of the Bishop Eu-
phrates. The harlot who thought that it was
a young man who had sent to invite her, at
first willingly accompanied them; but when
7 This accounts for Ath.'s caution, Apol. Ar. 51, and below 1 31.
8 Apol. Ar. 70, note 5.
9 Ap. Const. 3, note 3. «o Cologne. i Infr. $ so.
» Bishop of Antioch, cf § 4, above.
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS.
27;
they thrust her in, and she saw the man asleep
and unconscious of what was going on, and
when presently she distinguished his features,
and beheld the face of an old man, and the
array of a Bishop, she immediately cried
aloud, and declared that violence was used
towards her. They desired her to be silent,
and to lay a false charge against the Bishop ;
and so when it was day, the matter was noised
abroad, and all the city ran together; and
those who came from the Palace were in great
commotion, wondering at the report which
had been spread abroad, and demanding that
it should not be passed by in silence. An
enquiry, therefore, was made, and her master
gave information concerning those who came
to fetch the harlot, and these informed against
Stephanus ; for tney were his Clergy. Ste-
phanus, therefore, is deposed^*, and Leontius
the eunuch appointed in his place, only that
the Arian heresy may not want a supporter.
21. Constantius' change of mind.
And now the Emperor Constantius, feel-
ing some compunctions, returned to himself;
and concluding from their conduct towards
Euphrates, that their attacks upon the others
were of the same kind, he gives orders that
the Presbyters and Deacons who had been
banished from Alexandria into Armenia should
immediately be released. He also writes
publicly to Alexandria 3, commanding that the
clergy and laity who were friends of Athanasius
should suffer no further persecution. And
when Gregory died about ten months ^^^ after,
he sends for Athanasius with every mark of
honour, writing to him no less than three
times a very friendly letter "», in which he
exhorted him to take courage and come. He
sends also a Presbyter and a Deacon, that he
may be still further encouraged to return ; for
he thought that, through alarm at what had
taken place before, I s did not care to return.
Moreover he writes to his brother Constans,
that he also would exhort me to return. And
he affirmed that he had been expecting Atha-
nasius a whole year, and that he would not
permit any change to be made, or any ordina-
tion to take place, as he was preserving the
Churches for Athanasius their Bishop.
•» [Between Easter and Midsummer 344.]
S [Probably about August 344.]
3» [June 26, 345. Athanasius received some at least of the
letters at Aquileia, where he spent Easter, 345 (Afiol. Ar. 51, Fest.
Ind. xvii.). He then went to see Constans at Treveri, apparently
in May, -nii/lpol. Const. 4, Gwatkin, Stud. 127, n.)- This compels
us to assume that the first invitation to Ath. to return must have
been wrung {in/r. 49, 50) from Constantius before the death of
Gregory. The statement in the text is therefore so far inexact, but
the lung illness of Gregory must have made his death a matter of
<laily expectation, cl Prolegg. cb. iL 8 6 (3) fin.]
4 Apol. Ar. SI.
5 [Here for once Ath. speaks in the first person, cf^ if 15, 26,
^4, 69, and 51, note 2a.]
22. Athanasius visits Constantius.
When therefore he wrote in this strain, and
encouraged him by means of many (for he
caused Polemius, Datianus, Bardion, Tha-
lassus ^, Taurus ?, and Florentius, his Counts,
in whom Athanasius could best confide, to
write also) : Athanasius committing the whole
matter to God, who had stirred the conscience
of Constantius to do this, came with his
friends to him ; and he gave him a favourable
audience 7", and sent him away to go to his
country and his Churches, writing at the same
time to' the magistrates in the several places,
that whereas he had before commanded the
ways to be guarded, they should now grant
him a free passage. Then when the Bishop
complained of the sufferings he had undergone,
and of the letters which the Emperor had
written against him, and besought him that
the false accusations against him might not be
revived by his enemies after his departure,
saying ^, ' If you please, summon these persons ;
for as far as we are concerned they are at
liberty to stand forth, and we will expose their
conduct;' he would not do this, but com-
manded that whatever had been before slander-
ously written against him should all be de-
stroyed and obliterated, affirming that he
would never again listen to any such accusa-
tions, and that his purpose was fixed and
unalterable. This he did not simply say, but
sealed his words with oaths, calling upon
God to be witness of them. And so encourag-
ing him with many other words, and desiring
him to be of good courage, he sends the
following letters to the Bishops and Magis-
trates.
23. Constantius Augustus, the Great, the
Conqueror, to the Bishops and Clergy of the
Catholic Church.
The most Reverend Athanasius has not
been deserted by the grace of God 9, &c.
Another Letter.
From Constantius to the people of Alex-
andria.
Desiring as we do your welfare in all re-
spects '°, &C.
Another Letter,
Constantius Augustus, the Conqueror, to
Nestorius, Prefect of Egypt.
It is well known that an order was hereto-
fore given by us, and that certain documents
are to be found prejudicial to the estimation of
6 Apol, Const, 3. ^ At Ariminum.
7» Apol. Ar. s^; Apol. Const. 5. « Below, § 44.
9 Vid. Apol. contr, Arian, § 34. »<> lb. § 55.
278
HISTORIA ARIANORUM.
the most reverend Bishop Athanasius ; and
that these exist among the Orders ^ of your
worship. Now we desire your Sobriety, of
which we have good proof, to transmit to our
Court, in compliance with this our order, all
the letters respecting the fore-mentioned per-
son, which are found in your Order-book.
24. The following is the letter which he wrote
after the death of the blessed Constans. It
was written in Latin, and is here translated
into Greeks
Constantius Augustus, the Conqueror, to
Athanasius.
It is not unknown to your Prudence, that it
was my constant prayer, that prosperity might
attend my late brother Constans in all his
undertakings ; and your wisdom may therefore
imagine how greatly I was afflicted when
I learnt that he had been taken off by most
unhallowed hands. Now whereas there are
certain persons who at the present truly
mournful time are endeavouring to alarm you,
I have therefore thought it right to address
this letter to your Constancy, to exhort you
that, as becomes a Bishop, you would teach
the people those things which pertain to
the divine religion, and that, as you are
accustomed to do, you would employ your
time in prayers together with them, and not
give credit to vain rumours, whatever they may
be. For our fixed determination is, that you
should continue, agreeably to our desire, to
perform the office of a Bishop in your own
place. May Divine Providence preserve you,
most beloved parent, many years.
25. Return of Athanasius from second exile.
Under these circumstances, when they had
at length taken their leave, and begun their
journey, those who were friendly rejoiced to
see a friend; but of the other party, some
were confounded at the sight of him ; others
not having the confidence to appear, hid
themselves; and others repented of what
they had written against the Bishop. Thus
all the Bishops of Palestine 3, except some
two or three, and those men of suspected
character, so willingly received Athanasius,
and embraced communion with him, that they
wrote to excuse themselves, on the ground that
in what they had formerly written, they had
acted, not according to their own wishes, but
by compulsion. Of the Bishops of Egypt and
the Libyan provinces, of the laity both of those
countries and of Alexandria, it is superfluous
for me to speak. They all ran 4 together, and
were possessed with unspeakable delight, that
' Or Acta Publica, vid. supr. Ap. Ar. 56. 2 Another
translation, Apol. Const. 23. 3 Apol. Ar. 57. 4 Oct. 21. ^46.
they had not only received their friends alive
contrary to their hopes ; but that they were
also delivered from the heretics who were as
tyrants and as raging dogs towards them.
Accordingly great was their joy s, the people in
the congregations encouraging one another in
virtue. How many unmarried women, who
were before ready to enter upon marriage, now
remained virgins to Christ ! How many young
men, seeing the examples of others, embraced
the monastic life ! How many fathers per-
suaded their children, and how many were
urged by their children, not to be hindered
from Christian asceticism ! How many wives
persuaded their husbands, and how many were
persuaded by their husbands, to give them-
selves to prayer 6, as the Apostle has spoken I
How many widows and how many orphans, who
were before hungry and naked, now through
the great zeal of the people, were no longer
hungry, and went forth clothed ! In a word, so
great was their emulation in virtue, that you
would have thought every family and every
house a Church, by reason of the goodness of
its inmates, and the prayers which were offered,
to God. And in the Churches there was a pro-
found and wonderful peace, while the Bishops
wrote from all quarters, and received from
Athanasius the customary letters of peace.
26. Recantation of Ursacius and Valens.
Moreover Ursacius and Valens, as if suffering
the scourge of conscience, came to another
mind, and wrote to the Bishop himself a
friendly and peaceable letter 7, although they
had received no communication from him.
And going up to Rome they repented, and
confessed that all their proceedings and as-
sertions against him were founded in falsehood
and mere calumny. And they not only volun-
tarily did this, but also anathematized the
Arian heresy, and presented a written decla-
ration of their repentance, addressing to the
Bishop Julius the following letter in Latin,
which has been translated into Greek. The
copy was sent to us in Latin by Paul ^, Bishop
of Treveri.
Translation from the Latin.
Ursacius and Valens to my Lord the most
blessed Pope Julius.
Whereas it is well known that we 9, &c.
Translation from the Latin,
The Bishops Ursacius and Valens to my
Lord and Brother, the Bishop Athanasius.
Having an opportunity of sending ^°, &c.
5 Apol, Ar. 53. * 1 Cor. vii. 5. 7 Afiol. Ar. 58
[a.d. 347]. 8 Paulinus, supr. pp. 130, 227. 9 Vid. AJ>oL
contr. Ar. §58. " Ibid.
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS.
279
After writing these, they also subscribed the
letters of peace which were presented to them
by Peter and Irenaeus, Presbyters of Athana-
sius, and by Ammonius a layman, who were
passing that way, although Athanasius had sent
no communication to them even by these
persons.
27. Trlnmph of AtJianasliis.
Now who was not filled with admiration at
witnessing these things, and the great peace
that prevailed in the Churches ? who did not
rejoice to see the concord of so many Bishops ?
who did not glorify the Lord, beholding the
delight of the people in their assemblies?
How many enemies repented ! How many
excused themselves who had formerly accused
him falsely ! How many who formerly hated
him, now shewed affection for him ! How
many of those who had written against him,
recanted their assertions ? Many also who had
sided with the Arians, not through choice but
by necessity, came by night and excused them-
selves. They anathematized the heresy, and
besought him to pardon them, because, al-
though through the plots and calumnies of
these men they appeared bodily on their side,
yet in their hearts they held communion with
Athanasius, and were always with him. Be-
lieve me, this is true.
PART IV,
Second Arian Persecution under
constantius.
28. But the inheritors of the opinions and
impiety of Eusebius and his fellows, the eunuch
Leontius^ who ought not to remain in com-
munion even as a layman % because he
mutilated himself that he might henceforward
be at liberty to sleep with one Eustolium,
who is a wife as far as he is concerned, but
is called a virgin ; and George and Acacius,
and Theodorus, and Narcissus, who are de-
posed by the Council ; when they heard and
saw these things, were greatly ashamed. And
when they perceived the unanimity and peace
that existed between Athanasius and the
Bishops (they were more than four hundred 3,
from great Rome, and all Italy, from Cala-
bria, Apulia, Campania, Bruttia, Sicily, Sar-
dinia, Corsica, and the whole of Africa; and
> On the crvfeiVaKTai, vid. [D. C. A. 193Q sqq. Bright, Notes on
Canons, p. 839], Mosheim de Rebus Ante Const, p. 599, Routh,
Reliqu. Sacr. t. 2. p. 606. t. 3. p. 445. Basnag. Diss. vii. 19.
in Ann. Eccles. t. 2. 'i,\\.\\3Xox\, Anecdot. Grcec. p. 218. Dod
well, Dissert. Cyprian, hi. Bevereg. in Can. Nic. 3. Suicer.
Thesaur. in voc. &c. &c. It is conjectured by Beveridge.
Dodwell, Van Espen, &c., that Leontius gave occasion to the
first Canon of the Nicene Council, n-epi tuiv toKiiiovtuv iavToin
fKTetivei.v.
" Can. A/. 17. but vid. Morin. de Pcen. p. 185.
3 After Sardica, vid. Apol. Ar. 50, note 10.
those from Gaul, 'Britain, and Spain, with the
great Confessor Hosius; and also those from
Pannonia, Noricum, Siscia, Dalmatia, Dar-
dania, Dacia, Moesia, Macedonia, Thessaly,
and all Achaia, and from Crete, Cyprus, and
Lycia, with most of those from Palestine,
Isauria, Egypt, the Thebais, the whole of
Libya, and Pentapolis); when I say they per-
ceived these things, they were possessed with
envy and fear ; with envy, on account of the
communion of so many together ; and with
fear, lest those who had been entrapped by
them should be brought over by the unanimity
of so great a number, and henceforth their
heresy should be triumphantly exposed, and
everywhere proscribed.
29. Relapse of Ursacius and Vahns,
First of all they persuade Ursacius, Valens
and their fellows to change sides again, and
like dogs+ to return to their own vomit, and
like swine to wallow again in the former
mire of their impiety ; and they make this
excuse for their retractation, that they did it
through fear of the most religious Constans,
And yet even had there been cause for fear,
yet if they had confidence in what they had
done, they ought not to have become traitors
to their friends. But when there was no
cause for fear, and yet they were guilty of
a lie, are they not deserving of utter con-
demnation ? For no soldier was present, no
Palatine or Notarys had been sent, as they
now send them, nor yet was the Emperor
there, nor had they been invited by any one,
when they wrote their recantation. But they
voluntarily went up to Rome, and of their own
accord recanted and wrote it down in the
Church, where there was no fear from without,
where the only fear is the fear of God, and
where every one has liberty of conscience.
And yet although they have a second time be-
come Arians, and then have devised this un-
seemly excuse for their conduct, they are still
without shame.
30. Constantius changes sides again.
In the next place they went in a body to the
Emperor Constantius, and besought him, say-
ing, ' When we first made our request to you,
we were not believed ; for we told you, when
you sent for Athanasius, that by inviting him
to come forward, you are expelling our heresy.
For he has been opposed to it from the very
first, and never ceases to anathematize it. He
has already written letters against us into all
parts ot the world, and the majority of men
have embraced communion with him ; and
4 [351 A.D.] Cf. « Pet. ii. 22.
5 Apol. Const, igk
28o
HISTORIA ARIANORUM.
even of those who seemed to be on our side,
some have been gained over by him, and
others are Hkely to be. And we are left alone,
so that the tear is, lest the character of our
heresy become known, and henceforth both we
and you gain the name of heretics. And if
this come to pass, you must take care that we
be not classed with the Manichaeans. There-
fore begin again to persecute, and support the
heresy, for it accounts you its king.' Such was
the language of their iniquity. And the Em-
peror, when in his passage through the country
on his hasty march against Magnentius^, he
saw the communion of the Bishops with Athana-
sius, like one set on fire, suddenly changed his
mind, and no longer remembered his oaths,
but was alike forgetful of what he had written,
and regardless of the duty he owed his brother.
For in his letters to him, as well as in his inter-
view with Athanasius, he took oaths that he
would not act otherwise than as the people
should wish, and as should be agreeable to the
Bishops. But his zeal for impiety caused him
at once to forget all these things. And yet one
ought not to wonder that after so many letters
and so many oaths Constantius had altered his
mind, when we remember that Pharaoh of old,
the tyrant of Egypt, after frequently promising
and by that means obtaining a remission of his
punishments, likewise changed, until he at last
perished together with his associates.
31. Constantius be^ns to persecute.
He compelled then the people in every city
to change their party; and on arriving at Aries
and Milan?, he proceeded to act entirely in
accordance with the designs and suggestions
of the heretics; or rather they acted them-
selves, and receiving authority from him,
furiously attacked every one. Letters and
orders were immediately sent hither to the
Prefect, that for the future the corn should
be taken from Athanasius and given to those
who favoured the Arian doctrines, and that
whoever pleased might freely insult them that
held communion with him ; and the magis-
trates were threatened if they did not hold
communion with the Arians. These things
were but the prelude to what afterwards took
place under the direction of the Duke Syrianus.
Orders were sent also to the more distant
parts, and Notaries despatched to every city,
and Palatines, with threats to the Bishops and
Magistrates, directing the Magistrates to urge
on the Bishops, and informing the Bishops that
either they must subscribe against Athanasius,
and hold communion with the Arians, or them-
selves undergo the punishment of exile, while
«> [351 A.D.]
7 [353 and 355.]
the people who took part with them were to
understand that chains, and insults, and scourg-
ings, and the loss of their possessions, would be
their portion. These orders were not neglected,
for the commissioners had in their company the
Clergy of Ursacius and Valens, to inspire them
with zeal, and to inform the Emperor if the
Magistrates neglected their duty. The other
heresies, as younger sisters of their own ^, they
permitted to blaspheme the Lord, and only
conspired against the Christians, not enduring
to hear orthodox language concerning Christ.
How many Bishops in consequence, according
to the words of Scripture, were brought before
rulers and kings 9, and received this sentence
from magistrates, 'Subscribe, or withdraw from
your churches, for the Emperor has commanded
you to be deposed ! ' How many in every city
were roughly handled, lest they should accuse
them as friends of the Bishops! Moreover
letters were sent to the city authorities, and a
threat of a fine was held out to them, if they
did not compel the Bishops of their respective
cities to subscribe. In short, every place and
every city was full of fear and confusion, while
the Bishops were dragged along to trial, and the
magistrates witnessed the lamentations and
groans of the people.
32. Persemtion by Constantius.
Such were the proceedings of the Palatine
commissioners ; on the other hand, those ad-
mirable persons, confident in the patronage
which they had obtained, display great zeal,
and cause some of the Bishops to be sum-
moned before the Emperor, while they perse-
cute others by letters, inventing charges against
them ; to the intent that the one might be over-
awed by the presence of Constantius, and the
other, through fear of the commissioners and
the threats held out to them in these pretended
accusations, might be brought to renounce
their orthodox and pious opinions. In this man-
ner it was that the Emperor forced so great a
multitude of Bishops, partly by threats, and
partly by promises, to declare, * We will no
longer hold communion with Athanasius.' For
those who came for an interview, were not ad-
mitted to his presence, nor allowed any relaxa-
tion, not so much as to go out of their dwellings,
until they had either subscribed, or refused and
incurred banishment thereupon. And this he
did because he saw that the heresy was hateful
to all men. For this reason especially he com-
pelled so many to add their names to the small
number^ of the Arians, his earnest desire being
to collect tegether a crowd of names, both from
8 De Syn. t2, note ii.
9 Mark xiii. 9. » Cf. de Syn. 5, note, and above E^. ^g. 7.
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS.
281
envy of the Bishop, and for the sake of making
a shew in favour of the Arian impiety, of which
he is the patron ; supposing that he will be able
to alter the truth, as easily as he can influence
the minds of men. He knows not, nor has ever
read, how that the Sadducees and the Hero-
dians, taking unto them the Pharisees, were
not able to obscure the truth ; rather it shines
out thereby more brightly every day, while they
crying out, 'We have no king but Csesar^,' and
obtaining the judgment of Pilate in their favour,
are nevertheless left destitute, and wait in utter
shame, expecting shortly3 to become bereft,
like the partridge*, when they shall see their
patron near his death.
33. Persecution is from the Devil.
Now if it was altogether unseemly in any
of the Bishops to change their opinions merely
from fear of these things, yet it was much
more so, and not the part of men who have
confidence in what they believe, to force and
compel the unwilling. In this manner it is
that the Devil, when he has no truth on his
sides, attacks and breaks down the doors of
them that admit him with axes and hammers^.
But our Saviour is so gentle that He teaches
thus, ' If any man wills to come after Me,'
and, 'Whoever wills to be My disciple?;' and
coming to each He does not force them, but
knocks at the door and says, ' Open unto Me,
My sister. My spouse^;' and if they open to
Him, He enters in, but if they delay and will
not. He departs from them. For the truth is
not preached with swords or with darts, nor
by means of soldiers ; but by persuasion and
counsel. But what persuasion is there where
fear of the Emperor prevails ? or what counsel
is there, when he who withstands them receives
at last banishment and death ? Even David,
although he was a king, and had his enemy in
his power, prevented not the soldiers by an
exercise of authority when they wished to kill
his enemy, but, as the Scripture says, David
persuaded his men by arguments, and suffered
them not to rise up and put Saul to death'.
But he, being without arguments of reason,
forces all men by his power, that it may be
shewn to all, that their wisdom is not ac-
cording to God, but merely human, and that
they who favour the Arian doctrines have
indeed no king but Caesar ; for by his means
it is that these enemies of Christ accomplish
whatsoever they wish to do. But while they
thought that they were carrying on their de-
signs against many by his means, they knew
s John xix. 15, and Oral. i. 8, note. 3 oaov ovSewia, above.
X3 ; Const, died Nov. 3, 361, aged 45. ■* Jei-. xvii. 11, LXX.
5 Vid. note on § 67 [and Bright, /^ist. IVriting^s of Ath. p. Ixviii.
note 0I. 6 Vid. Ps. budv. 6. 7 Matt. xvi. 34. 8 Cant. V. 2.
note 9]. 6 Vid. Ps. Ixxiv. 6
> X Sam. xxvi. 9.
not that they were making many to be con-
fessors, of whom are those who have lately*
made so glorious a confession, religious men,
and excellent Bishops, Paulinus3 Bishop of
Treveri, the metropolis of the Gauls, Lucifer,
Bishop of the metropolis of Sardinia, Eusebius
of Vercelli in Italy, and Dionysius of Milan,
which is the metropolis of Italy. These the
Emperor summoned before him, and com-
manded them to subscribe against Athanasius,
and to hold communion with the heretics ;
and when they were astonished at this novel
procedure, and said that there was no Ecclesi-
astical Canon to this effect, he immediately
said, 'Whatever I will, be that esteemed
a Canon ; the "Bishops" of Syria let me thus
speak. Either then obey, or go into banish-
ment.'
34. Banishment of the Western Bishops
spread the knowledge of the truth.
When the Bishops heard this they were
utterly amazed, and stretching forth their
hands to God, they used great boldness of
speech against him, teaching him that the
kingdom was not his, but God's, who had
given it to him, Whom also they bid him fear,
lest He should suddenly take it away from
him. And they threatened him with the day
of judgment, and warned him against infring-
ing Ecclesiastical order, and mingling Roman
sovereignty with the constitution ■♦ of the Church,
and against introducing the Arian heresy into
the Church of God. But he would not listen to
them, nor permit them to speak further, but
threatened them so much the more, and drew
his sword against them, and gave orders for
some of them to be led to execution ; al-
though afterwards, like Pharaoh, he repented.
The holy men therefore shaking off the dust,
and looking up to God, neither feared the
threats of the Emperor, nor betrayed their
cause before his drawn sword ; but received
their banishment, as a service pertaining to
their ministry. And as they passed along,
they preached the Gospel in every place and
citys, although they were in bonds, proclaiming
the orthodox faith, anathematizing the Arian
heresy, and stigmatizing the recantation of
Ursacius and Valens. But this was contrary
to the intention of their enemies ; for the
greater was the distance of their place of
banishment, so much the more was the hatred
against them increased, while the wanderings
of these men were but the heralding of their
impiety. For who that saw them as they
passed along, did not greatly admire them
a Apol. Const. 27 ; Apol. Fug: 4, and below, § 76. i § 26,
and references there. _ 4 fiiarayg, cf. § 36. S Infr. § 40,
vtd. Acts viii. 4 ; Phil. i. 13.
282
HISTORIA ARIANORUM.
as Confessors, and renounce and abominate
the others, calling them not only impious men,
but executioners and murderers, and everything
rather than Christians ?
PART V.
Persecution and Lapse of Liberius.
35. Now it had been better if from the first
Constantius had never become connected with
this heresy at all ; or being connected with it,
if he had not yielded so much to those im-
pious men ; or having yielded to them, if
he had stood by them only thus far, so that
judgment might come upon them all for these
atrocities alone. But as it would seem, like
madmen, having fixed themselves in the
bonds of impiety, they are drawing down upon
their own heads a more severe judgment.
Thus from the first' they spared not even
Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but extended ^ their
fury even to those parts; they respected not
his bishopric, because it was an Apostolical
throne; they felt no reverence for Rome,
because she is the Metropolis of Romania3 ;
they remembered not that formerly in their
letters they had spoken of her Bishops as
Apostohcal men. But confounding all things
together, they at once forgot everything, and
cared only to shew their zeal in behalf of
impiety. When they perceived that he was
an orthodox man and hated the Arian heresy,
and earnestly endeavoured to persuade all
persons to renounce and withdraw from it,
these impious men reasoned thus with them-
selves : * If we can persuade Liberius, we
shall soon prevail over all' Accordingly they
accused him falsely before the Emperor ; and
he, expecting easily to draw over all men to
his side by means of Liberius, writes to him,
and sends a certain eunuch called Eusebius
with letters and ofiferings, to cajole him with
the presents, and to threaten him with the
letters. The eunuch accordingly went to
Rome, and first proposed to Liberius to
subscribe against Athanasius, and to hold
communion with the Arians, saying, 'The
Emperor wishes it, and commands you to
do so.' And then shewing him the offerings,
he took him by the hand, and again besought
him saying, ' Obey the Emperor, and receive
these.'
• In contrast to date of his fall.
2 T171/ naviav e jeVeii'ai/; vid. exTeii/ai ttji' fxavCav, § 42. And
so in the letter of the Council of Chalcedon to Pope Leo ; which
says that Dioscorus, Kar' ai/roO ttjs d/xTre'Aou ttjv <\)v\aK'r]v napa
TOy <rioTT)pos cTriTexpa^/aeVou ririv /j-aviav efeVetve, Aeyojuej' ^tj rns
oTjs oatoTYiTOs. Hard. Cone. t. s. p. 656. [Cf. Prolegg. ch.
IV. § 4-] . _
3 By Romania is meant the Roman Empire, according to Mont-
faucoa after Nannius. vid. Praifat. xxxiv. xxxv. And so Epiph
Jiisr. Ixvi. I fin. p. 618. and Ixviii. 2 init. p. 728. Nil. £p. i, 75
vid. Du Cange Gioss. Grcec. in voc.
36. The Eunuch Eusebius attempts Liberius
in vain.
But the Bishop endeavoured to convince
him, reasoning with him thus : ' How is it
possible for me to do this against Athanasius ?
how can we condemn a man, whom not one *
Council only, but a second s assembled from
all parts of the world, has fairly acquitted, and
whom the Church of the Romans dismissed in
peace ? who will approve of our conduct, if we
reject in his absence one, whose presence *
amongst us we gladly welcomed, and admitted
him to our communion? This is no Eccle-
siastical Canon ; nor have we had transmitted
to us any such tradition? from the Fathers, who
in their turn received from the great and
blessed Apostle Peter ^. But if the Emperor
is really concerned for the peace of the Church,
if he requires our letters respecting Athanasius
to be reversed, let their proceedings both
against him and against all the others be
reversed also ; and then let an Ecclesiastical
Council be called at a distance from the
Court, at which the Emperor shall not be
present, nor any Count be admitted, nor
magistrate to threaten us, but where only the
fear of God and the Apostolical rule 9 shall
prevail ; that so in the first place, the faith of
the Church may be secure, as the Fathers
defined it in the Council of Nicaea, and the
supporters of the Arian doctrines may be cast
out, and their heresy anathematized. And
then after that, an enquiry being made into
the charges brought against Athanasius, and
any other besides, as well as into those things
of which the other party is accused, let the
culprits be cast out, and the innocent receive
encouragement and support. For it is im-
possible that they who maintain an impious
creed can be admitted as members of a
Council : nor is it fit that an enquiry into
matters of conduct should precede the enquiry
concerning the faith'; but all diversity of
opinions on points of faith ought first to be
eradicated, and then the enquiry made into
matters of conduct. Our Lord Jesus Christ
did not heal them that were afflicted, until
they shewed and declared what faith they had
in Him. These things we have received from
the Fathers ; these report to the Emperor ;
for they are both profitable for him and
edifying to the Church. But let not Ursacius
and Valens be listened to, for they have
retracted their former assertions, and in what
they now say they are not to be trusted.'
4 At Alexandria. S At Sardica.
6 Vid. Apol. Ar. 29. _ 7 TrapaSocri?, vid. § 14.
8 Apol. Ar. § 35. 9 Twi/ dn-ouToXoui' Sioxaf IS, cf. § 34.
' Vid. Pallavicin. Cone. Trid. vi. 7. Sarpi. Hist. ii. 37.
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS.
283
37. Liberius refuses the Emperor's offering.
These were the words of the Bishop Li-
berius. And the eunuch, who was vexed,
not so much because he would not subscribe,
as because he found him an enemy to the
heresy, forgetting that he was in the presence
of a Bishop, after threatening him severely,
went away with the offerings ; and next com-
mits an offence, which is foreign to a Chris-
tian, and too audacious for a eunuch. In
imitation of the transgression of Saul, he
went to the Martyry ^ of the Apostle Peter,
and then presented the offerings. But Liberius
having notice of it, was very angry with the
person who kept the place, that he had not
prevented him, and cast out the offerings as
an unlawful sacrifice, which increased the
anger of the mutilated creature against him.
Consequently he exasperates the Emperor
against him, saying, ' The matter that con-
cerns us is no longer the obtaining the sub-
scription of Liberius, but the fact that he is
so resolutely opposed to the heresy, that he
anathematizes the Arians by name.' He also
stirs up the other eunuchs to say the same ;
for many of those who were about Constantius,
or rather the whole number of them, are
eunuchs 3, who engross all the influence with
him, and it is impossible to do anything there
without them. The Emperor accordingly
writes to Rome, and again Palatines, and
Notaries, and Counts are sent off with letters
to the Prefect, in order that either they may
inveigle Liberius by stratagem away from
Rome and send him to the Court to him, or
else persecute him by violence.
38. The evil influence of Eunuchs at Court.
Such being the tenor of the letters, there
also fear and treachery forthwith became rife
throughout the whole city. How many were
the families against which threats were held
out ! How many received great promises on
condition of their acting against Liberius !
How many Bishops hid themselves when they
saw these thmgs ! How many noble women
retired to country places in consequence of the
calumnies of the enemies of Christ! How
many ascetics were made the objects of their
plots ! How many who were sojourning there,
and had made that place their home, did they
cause to be persecuted ! How often and how
strictly did they guard the harbour * and the
approaches to the gates, lest any orthodox
person should enter and visit Liberius ! Rome
« [i Sam. xiii. 9. cf. D.C.A. 1132, s.v. Martyrium.]
3 Vid. Gibbon, Hist. ch. 19 init.
4 Ostia, vid. Gibbon, Hist. ch. 31, p. 303.
also had trial of the enemies of Christ, and
now experienced what before she would not
believe, when she heard how the other Churches
in every city were ravaged by them. It was
the eunuchs who instigated these proceedings
against all. And the most remarkable circum-
stance in the matter is this ; that the Arian
heresy which denies the Son of God, receives
its support from eunuchs, who, as both their
bodies are fruitless, and their souls barren of
virtue, cannot bear even to hear the name
of son. The Eunuch of Ethiopia indeed,
though he understood not what he read s,
believed the words of Philip, when he taught
him concerning the Saviour ; but the eunuchs
of Constantius cannot endure the confes-
sion of Peter ^, nay, they turn away when
the Father manifests the Son, and madly rage
against those who say, that the Son of God is
His genuine Son, thus claiming as a heresy of
eunuchs, that there is no genuir>e and true
offspring of the Father. On these grounds it
is that the law forbids such persons .to be
admitted into any ecclesiastical Council i ;
notwithstanding which they have now re-
garded these as competent judges of ecclesi-
astical causes, and whatever seems good to
them, that Constantius decrees, while men
with the name of Bishops dissemble with them.
Oh ! who shall be their historian ? who shall
transmit the record of these things to another
generation ? who indeed would believe it,
were he to hear it, that eunuchs who are
scarcely entrusted with household services (for
theirs is a pleasure-loving race, that has no
serious concern but that of hindering in others
what nature has taken from them) ; that these,
I say, now exercise authority in ecclesiastical
matters, and that Constantius in submission to
their will treacherously conspired against all,
and banished Liberius 1
39. Liberiui s speech to Constantius,
For after the Emperor had frequently written
to Rome, had threatened, sent commissioners,
devised schemes, on the persecution 7* sud-
sequently breaking out at Alexandria, Liberius
is dragged before him, and uses great boldness
of speech towards him. ' Cease,' he said, ' to
persecute the Christians ; attempt not by my
means to introduce impiety into the Church.
We are ready to suffer anything rather than to
be called Arian madmen. We are Christians ;
compel us not to become enemies of Christ.
We also give you this counsel : fight not
against Him who gave you this empire, nor
shew impiety towards Him instead of thankful-
S \cts viii. 27. 6 Matt. xvi. i6, allusion to Liberius? vid.
Hard. Cone. t. 2. p. 305 E. ^ Can. Nic. i. 7" [356 a.d.;'
284
HISTORIA ARIANORUM.
ness ^ ; persecute not them that beheve in
Him, lest you also hear the words, ' It is hard
for thee to kick against the pricks 9.' Nay,
I would that you might hear them, that you
might obey, as the holy Paul did. Behold,
here we are ; we are come, before they fabri-
cate charges. For this cause we hastened
hither, knowing that banishment awaits us at
your hands, that we might suffer before a
charge encounters us, and that all may clearly
see that all the others too have suffered as we
shall suffer, and that the charges brought
against them were fabrications of their enemies,
and all their proceedings were mere calumny
and falsehood.'
40. Banishment of Liherius and others.
These were the words of Liberius at that
time, and he was admired by all men for them.
But the Emperor instead of answering 9% only
gave orders for their banishment, separating
each of- them from the rest, as he had done in
the former cases. For he had himself devised
this plan in the banishments which he inflicted,
that so the severity of his punishments might be
greater than that of former tyrants and perse-
cutors ^. In the former persecution Maximian,
who was then Emperor, commanded a number
of Confessors to be banished together % and
thus lightened their punishment by the con-
solation which he gave them in each other's
society. But this man was more savage than
he ; he separated those who had spoken boldly
and confessed together, he put asunder those
who were united by the bond of faith, that
when they came to die they might not see one
another; thinking that bodily separation can
disunite also the affections of the mind, and
that being severed from each other, they would
forget the concord and unanimity which ex-
isted among them. He knew not that however
each one may remain 3 apart from the rest, he
has nevertheless with him that Lord, whom
they confessed in one body together, who will
also provide (as he did in the case of the
Prophet Elisha 4) that more shall be with each
of them, than there are soldiers with Constan-
tius. Of a truth iniquity is blind ; for in that
they thought to afflict the Confessors, by sepa-
rating them from one another, they rather
brought thereby a great injury upon them-
selves. For had they continued in each other's
company, and abode together, the pollutions
of those impious men would have been pro-
claimed from one place only ; but now by
putting them asunder, they have made their
8 Cf. 8 34. 9 Acts ix. 5.
9» [But see Theodoret, Hist. ii. i6.] ' Cf. infr. § 60.
3 J 64 [a.D. 355]. 3 Cf. § 47. 4 2 Kings vi. 16.
impious heresy and wickedness to spread
abroad and become known in every place s.
41. Lapse of Liherius.
Who that shall hear what they did in the
course of these proceedings will not think them
to be anything rather than Christians ? When
Liberius sent Eutropius, a Presbyter, and Hi-
larius, a Deacon, with letters to the Emperor,
at the time that Lucifer and his fellows made
their confession, they banished the Presbyter
on the spot, and after stripping Plilarius ^ the
Deacon and scourging him on the back, they
banished him too, clamouring at him, ' Why
didst thou not resist Liberius instead of being
the bearer of letters from him.' Ursacius and
Valens, with the eunuchs who sided with them,
were the authors of this outrage. The Deacon,
while he was being scourged, praised the
Lord, remembering His words, ' I gave My
back to the smiters?;' but they while they
scourged him laughed and mocked him, feeling
no shame that they were insulting a Levite.
Indeed they acted but consistently in laughing
while he continued to praise God ; for it is
the part of Christians to endure stripes, but to
scourge Christians is the outrage of a Pilate or
a Caiaphas. Thus they endeavoured at the
first to corrupt the Church of the Romans,
wishing to introduce impiety into it as well
as others. But Liberius after he had been
in banishment two years gave way, and
from fear of threatened death subscribed.
Yet even this only shews their violent con-
duct, and the hatred of Liberius against the
heresy, and his support of Athanasius, so long
as he was suffered to exercise a free choice.
For that which men are forced by torture to
do contrary to their first judgment, ought not
to be considered the willing deed of those who
are in fear, but rather of their tormentors.
They however attempted everything in support
of their heresy, while the people in every
Church, preserving the faith which they had
learnt, waited for the return of their teachers,
and condemned the Antichristian heresy, and
all avoid it, as they would a serpent.
PART VI.
Persecution and lapse of Hosius.
42. But although they had done all this, yet
these impious men thought they had accom-
phshed nothing, so long as the great Hosius
escaped their wicked machinations. And now
5 Cf. § 34. ...
6 This Hilary afterwards followed Lucifer of Calaris m his
schism. He is supposed to be the author of the Comments oa
S. Paul's F.pistles attributed to S. Ambrose, who goes under the
name of Ambrosiaster. 7 Isa. 1. 6.
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS.
t85
they undertook to extend their fury' to that
great old man. They felt no shame at the
thought that he is the father * of the Bi-
shops ; they regarded not that he had been
a Confessor 3 ; they reverenced not the length
of his Episcopate, in which he had continued
more than sixty years ; but they set aside
everything, and looked only to the interests of
their heresy, as being of a truth such as neither
fear God, nor regard man 1 Accordingly they
went to Constantius, and again employed such
arguments as the following : ' We have done
everything; we have banished the Bishop of
the Romans ; and before him a very great
number of other Bishops, and have filled every
place with alarm. But these strong measures
of yours are as nothing to us, nor is our suc-
cess at all more secure, so long as Hosius
remains. While he is in his own place, the
rest also continue in their Churches, for he is
able by his arguments and his faith to per-
suade all men against us. He is the president
of Councils 5, and his letters are everywhere
attended to. He it was who put forth the
Nicene Confession, and proclaimed everywhere
that the Arians were heretics. If therefore he
is suffered to remain, the banishment of the
rest is of no avail, for our heresy will be de-
stroyed. Begin then to persecute him also
and spare him not, ancient as he is. Our
heresy knows not to honour even the hoary
hairs of the aged.'
43. Brave resistance of Hosius.
Upon hearing this, the Emperor no longer
delayed, but knowing the man, and the dignity
of his years, wrote to summon him. This was
when he first ^ began his attempt upon Li-
berius. Upon his arrival he desired him, and
urged him with the usual arguments, with
which he thought also to deceive the others,
that he would subscribe against us, and hold
communion with the Arians. But the old man,
scarcely bearing to hear the words, and grieved
that he had even ventured to utter such a pro-
posal, severely rebuked him, and after gaining
his consent, withdrew to his own country and
Church. But the heretics still complaining, and
instigating him to proceed (he had the eunuchs
also to remind him and to urge him further),
the Emperor again wrote in threatening terms ;
but still Hosius, while he endured their insults,
was unmoved by any fear of their designs
against him, and remaining firm to his pur-
pose, as one who had built the house of his
faith upon the rock, he spake boldly against
the heresy, regarding the threats held out to
» i.KTtlvax xqv iiavlav. ' Ap. Fug: 5. 3 Under Maximian.
4 Luke xviit. 2. _ S Of Nicaea and Sardica {A^. Fug. 5).
^ i.e. two years before his fall.
him in the letters but as drops of rain amT
blasts of wind. And although Constantius
wrote frequently, sometimes flattering him with
the title of Father, and sometimes threatening
and recounting the names of those who had
been banished, and saying, ' Will you continue
the only person to oppose the heresy? Be
persuaded and subscribe against Athanasius ;
for whoever subscribes against him thereby
embraces with us the Arian cause;' still Ho-
sius remained fearless, and while suffering
these insults, wrote an answer in such terms
as these. We have read the letter, which is
placed at the end t.
44. ' Hosius to Constantius the Emperor
sends health in the Lord.
I was a Confessor at the first, when a per-
secution arose in the time of your grandfather
Maximian ; and if you shall persecute me, I am
ready now, too, to endure anything rather than
to shed innocent blood and to betray the
truth. But I cannot approve of your conduct
in writing after this threatening manner. Cease
to write thus; adopt not the cause of Arius, nor
listen to those in the East, nor give credit to
Ursacius, Valens and their fellows. For what-
ever they assert, it is not on account of Athana-
sius, but for the sake of their own heresy. Believe
my statement, O Constantius, who am of an age
to be your grandfather. I was present at the
Council of Sardica, when you and your brother
Constans of blessed memory assembled us all
together ; and on my own account I challenged
the enemies of Athanasius, when they came to
the church where I abode®, that if they had
anything against him they might declare it ;
desiring them to have confidence, and not to
expect otherwise than that a right judgment
would be passed in all things. This I did
once and again, requesting them, if they were
unwilling to appear before the whole Council,
yet to appear before me alone ; promising
them also, that if he should be proved guilty,
he should certainly be rejected by us ; but if
he should be found to be blameless, and
should prove them to be calumniators, that if
they should then refuse to hold communion with
him, I would persuade him to go with me into
the Spains. Athanasius was willing to comply
with these conditions, and made no objection
to my proposal ; but they, altogether distrusting
their cause, would not consent. And on an-
other occasion Athanasius came to your Court 9,
when you wrote for him, and his enemies being
at the time in Antioch, he requested that
they might be summoned either altogether or
separately, in order that they might either con-
7 Transferred by copyists hither.
8 [i.e. at Sardica, cf. Apol. Ar. 36.]
9 Cf. S 22.
!86
HISTORIA ARIANORUM.
Vict him, or be convicted ^°, and might either
in his presence prove him to be what they
represented, or cease to accuse him when
absent. To this proposal also you would
not listen, and they equally rejected it. Why
then do you still give ear to them that speak
evil of him? How can you endure Valens
and Ursacius, although they have retracted,
and made a written confession of their calum-
nies^? For it is not true, as they pretend,
that they were forced to confess ; there
were no soldiers at hand to influence them;
your brother was not cognizant of the matter ^
No, such things were not done under his
government, as are done now; God forbid.
But they voluntarily went up to Rome, and in
the presence of the Bishop and Presbyters
wrote their recantation, having previously ad-
dressed to Athanasius a friendly and peaceable
letter. And if they pretend that force was
employed towards them, and acknowledge that
this is an evil thing, which you also disapprove
of; then do you cease to use force; write no
letters, send no Counts; but release those
that have been banished, lest while you are
complaining of violence, they do but exercise
greater violence. When was any such thing
done by Constans? What Bishop suffered
banishment? When did he appear as arbiter
of an Ecclesiastical trial? When did any Palatine
of his compel men to subscribe against any one,
that Valens and his fellows should be able to
affirm this? Cease these proceedings, I beseech
you, and remember that you are a mortal man.
Be afraid of the day of judgment, and keep your-
self pure thereunto. Intrude not yourself into
Ecclesiastical matters, neither give commands
unto us concerning them ; but learn them
from us. God has put into your hands the
kingdom; to us He has entrusted the affairs
of His Church ; and as he who would steal the
empire from you would resist the ordinance of
God, so likewise fear on your part lest by
taking upon yourself the government of the
Church, you become guilty of a great offence.
It is written, " Render unto Caesar the things
that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that
are God's 3." Neither therefore is it permitted
unto us to exercise an earthly rule, nor have
you. Sire, any authority to burn incense 4.
These things I write unto you out of a concern
for your salvation. With regard to the subject
of your letters, this is my determination ; I will
not^ unite myself to the Arians ; I anathematize
their heresy. Neither will I subscribe against
Athanasius, whom both we and the Church of
the Romans and the whole Council pronounced
to be guiltless. And yourself also, when you
understood this, sent for the man, and gave
him permission to return with honour to his
country and his Church. What reason then
can there be for so great a change in your
conduct ? The same persons who were his
enemies before, are so now also ; and the
things they now whisper to his prejudice (for
they do not declare them openly in his pre-
sence), the same they spoke against him, be-
fore you sent for him ; the same they spread
abroad concerning him when they come to the
Council. And when I required them to come
forward, as I have before said, they were un-
able to produce their proofs ; had they pos-
sessed any, they would not have fled so dis-
gracefully. Who then persuaded you so long
after to forget your own letters and decla-
rations ? Forbear, and be not influenced by
evil men, lest while you act for the mutual
advantage of yourself and them, you render
yourself responsible. For here you comply
with their desires, hereafter in the judgment
you will have to answer for doing so alone.
These men desire by your means to injure
their enemy, and wish to make you the min-
ister of their wickedness, in order that through
your help they may sow the seeds s of their
accursed heresy in the Church. Now it is not
a prudent thing to cast one's self into manifest
danger for the pleasure of others. Cease then,
I beseech you, O Constantius, and be per-
suaded by me. These things it becomes me
to write, and you not to despise.'
45. Lapse of Hosius, due to cruel persecution.
Such were the sentiments, and such the
letter, of the Abraham-like old man, Hosius,
truly so called ^. But the Emperor desisted
not from his designs, nor ceased to seek an
occasion against him ; but continued to threaten
him severely, with a view either to bring him
over by force, or to banish him if he refused
to comply. And as the Officers and Satraps
of Babylon t , seeking an occasion against
Daniel, found none except in the law of his
God ; so likewise these present Satraps of
impiety were unable to invent any charge
against the old man (for this true Hosius, and
his blameless life were known to all), except
the charge of hatred to their heresy. They
'o ApoL Const. 5. t A^ol. Ar. 58.
* § 29. 3 Matt. xxii. 21.
4 [The language of Hosius is figurative. The first mention of
incense as a rite in Christian worship is in ps.-Dionys., about
A.D. 500, cf. D.C.A. p. 830 JjT.]
5 Vid. de Deer. 2, note 6. It is remarkable, this letter having
so much its own character, and being so unlike Athanasius's
writings in style, that a phrase characteristic of him should here
occur in it. Did Athan. translate it from Latin?
* 6 oArjSws 'Ocrios. /caTacrKOTrot, ov yap CTn'o-KOTTOi, supr. § 3.
infr. §p 48, 76 fin. and so aKri6oj<; Eir<re'/3if , Theod. Hist. i. 4. 'Ovif-
ariiJ.oi', rov jrore <rot axp'Jo'TOi', vvvl Se evxpV^TOv, Philem. 10. Z>e
Syn. 26, note 6. ? Dan. vi. 51.
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS.
287
therefore proceeded to accuse him ; though
not under the same circumstances as those
others accused Daniel to Darius, for Darius
was grieved to hear the charge, but as Jezebel
accused Naboth, and as the Jews applied
themselves to Herod. And they said, ' He
not only will not subscribe against Athanasius,
but also on his account condemns us ; and his
hatred to the heresy is so great, that he also
writes to others, that they should rather suffer
death, than become traitors to the truth. For,
he says, our beloved Athanasius also is perse-
cuted for the Truth's sake, and Liberius, Bishop
of Rome, and all the rest, are treacherously
assailed' When this patron of impiety, and
Emperor of heresy^, Constantius, heard this,
and especially that there were others also in
trie Spains of the same mind as Hosius, after he
had tempted them also to subscribe, and was
unable to compel them to do so, he sent for
Hosius, and instead of banishing him, detained
him a whole year in Sirmium. Godless, un-
holy, without natural affection, he feared not
God, he regarded not his father's affection for
Hosius, he reverenced not his great age, for he
was now a hundred years old 9 ; but all these
things this modern Ahab, this second Belshaz-
zar of our times, disregarded for the sake of
impiety. He used such violence towards the
old man, and confined him so straitly, that at
last, broken by suffering, he was brought,
though hardly, to hold communion with Valens,
Ursacius, and their fellows, though he would not
subscribe against Athanasius. Yet even thus he
forgot not his duty, for at the approach of death,
as it were by his last testament, he bore witness
to the force which had been used towards him,
and anathematized the Arian heresy, and gave
strict charge that no one should receive it.
46. Arbitrary expulsion of so many bishops.
Who that witnessed these things, or that has
merely heard of them, will not be greatly
amazed, and cry aloud unto the Lord, say-
ing, 'Wilt Thou make a full end of Israel '°?'
Who that is acquainted with these proceed-
ings, will not with good reason cry out and
say, *A wonderful and horrible thing is
done in the land;' and, 'The heavens are
astonished at this, and the earth is even
more horribly afraid".' The fathers of the
people and the teachers of the faith are taken
away, and the impious are brought into the
Churches ? Who that saw when Liberius,
Bishop of Rome, was banished, and when the
great Hosius, the father" of the Bishops, suf-
8 §f 9. 3p. S4-,
9 ov7e TOf ©ebi/ (^ojSijjSels 6 afleos, ovre toC Trarpos ttji/ ti,6.9e<Tiv
alSecr^Eis 6 di/6o°ios, ovre to yrjpas alcrxw^eis o aoTTopyos.
«o Ez. xi. 13. " Jer. v. 30 ; ii. 12. " Cf § 15.
fered these things, or who that saw so many
Bishops banished out of Spain and the other
parts, could fail to perceive, however little
sense he might possess, that the charges ^3
against Athanasius also and the rest were false,
and altogether mere calumny? For this reason
those others also endured all suffering, because
they saw plainly that the conspiracies laid
against these were founded in falsehood. For
what charge was there against Liberius ? or
what accusation against the aged Hosius ? who
bore even a false witness against Paulinus, and
Lucifer, and Dionysius, and Eusebius ? or
what sin could be lain to the account of the
rest of the banished Bishops, and Presbyters,
and Deacons? None whatever; God forbid.
There were no charges against them on which
a plot for their ruin might be formed ; nor was
it on the ground of any accusation that they
were severally banished. It was an insurrec-
tion of impiety against godliness ; it was zeal
for the Arian heresy, and a prelude to the
coming of Antichrist, for whom Constantius is
thus preparing the way.
PART VII.
Persecution at Alexandria.
47. After he had accomplished all that he
desired against the Churches in Italy, and the
other parts ; after he had banished some, and
violently oppressed others, and filled every
place with fear, he at last turned his fury, as
it had been some pestilential disorder, against
Alexandria. This was artfully contrived by
the enemies of Christ ; for in order that they
might have a show of the signatures of many
Bishops, and that Athanasiue might not have
a single Bishop in his persecution to whom he
could even complain, they therefore anticipated
his proceedings, and filled every place with
terror, which they kept up to second them in
the prosecution of their designs. But herein
they perceived not through their folly that they
were not exhibiting the deliberate choice of the
Bishops, but rather the violence which them-
selves had employed ; and that, although his
brethren should desert him, and his friends
and acquaintance stand afar off, and no one be
found to sympathise with him and console
him, yet far above all these, a refuge with his
God was sufficient for him. For Elijah also
was alone in his persecution, and God was all
in all to the holy man. And the Saviour has
given us an example herein, who also was leit
alone, and exposed to the designs of His
enemies, to teach us, that when we are perse-
cuted and deserted by men, we must not faint,
«3 Vid. in Apo!. contr. Ar. and ad Const.
288
HISTORIA ARIANORUM.
but place our hope in Him, and not betray the
Truth. For although at first truth may seem to
be afflicted, yet even they who persecute shall
afterwards acknowledge it.
48. Attacks upon the Alexandrian Church.
Accordingly they urge on the Emperor, who
first writes a menacing letter, which he sends
to the Duke and the soldiers. The Notaries
Diogenius and Hilarius% and certain Pala-
tines with them, were the bearers of it ; upon
whose arrival those temble and cruel outrages
were committed against the Church, which I
have briefly related a httle above 3, and which
are known to all men from the protests put
forth by the people, which are inserted at the
end of this history, so that any one may read
them. Then after these proceedings on the
part of Syrianus, after these enormities had
been perpetrated, and violence offered to the
Virgins, as approving of such conduct and the
infliction of these evils upon us, he writes again
to the senate and people of Alexandria, in-
stigating the younger men, and requiring them
to assemble together, and either to persecute
Athanasius, or consider themselves as his
enemies. He however had withdrawn before
these instructions reached them, and from the
time when Syrianus broke into the Church ;
for he remembered that which was written,
' Hide thyself as it were for a little moment,
until the indignation be overpast *.' One He-
raclius, by rank a Count, was the bearer of this
letter, and the precursor of a certain George
that was despatched by the Emperor as a spy,
for one that was sent from him cannot be a
Bishop 5; God forbid. And so indeed his
conduct and the circumstances which preceded
his entrance sufficiently prove.
49 and 50. Hypocrisy of the pretended respect of
Constantius for his brothet's memory.
Heraclius then published the letter, which
reflected great disgrace upon the writer. For
whereas, when the great Hosius wrote to Con-
stantius, he had been unable to make out any
plausible pretext for his change of conduct, he
now invented an excuse much more discredit-
able to himself and his advisers. He said,
' From regard to the affection I entertained
towards my brother of divine and pious
memory, I endured for a time the coming of
Athanasius among you.' This proves that he
has both broken his promise, and behaved
ungratefully to his brother after his death. He
then declares him to be, as indeed he is,
' deserving of divine and pious remembrance ;'
a Ap. Const. 22, 24, below, § 8i. 3 § 31, &c.
•> Is. xxvi. 30k 5 Karao-KOTTOV, ouk cTriaKOiros, vid. § 45,
note 6.
yet as regards a command of his, or to use his
own language, the ' affection ' he bore him,
even though he complied merely * for the sake'
of the blessed Constans, he ought to deal
fairly by his brother, and make himself heir to
his sentiments as well as to the Empire. But,
although, when seeking to obtain his just
rights, he deposed Vetranio, with the question,
' To whom does the inheritance belong after
a brother's death ^?' yet for the sake of the
accursed heresy of the enemies of Christ, he
disregards the claims of justice, and behaves
undutifully towards his brethren. Nay, for the
sake of this heresy, he would not consent to
observe even his father's wishes without infringe-
ment; but, in what he may gratify these im-
pious men, he pretends to adopt his intention,
while in order to distress the others, he cares
not to shew the reverence which is due unto a
father. For in consequence of the calumnies of
Eusebius and his fellows, his father sent the
Bishop for a time into Gaul to avoid the cruelty
of his persecutors (this was shewn by the blessed
Constantine, the brother of the former, after
their father's death, as appears by his letters 7),
but he would not be persuaded by Eusebius
and his fellows to send the person whom they
desired for a Bishop, but prevented the accom-
plishment of their wishes, and put a stop to their
attempts with severe threats.
51. How Constantius shews his respect for
his father and brother.
If therefore, as he declares in his letters,
he desired to observe his sire's practice, why
did he first send out Gregory, and now this
George, the eater of stores^? Why does
he endeavour so earnestly to introduce into
the Church these Arians, whom his father
named Porphyrians9, and banish others while
he patronises them? Although his father
admitted Arius to his presence, yet when
Arius perjured himself and burst asunder'° he
lost the compassion of his father; who, on
learning the truth, condemned him as an here-
tic Why moreover, while pretending to re-
spect the Canon of the Church, has he
ordered the whole course of his conduct in
opposition to them ? For where is there
a Canon that a Bishop should be appointed
from Court? Where is there a Canon ^ that
permits soldiers to invade Churches? What
tradition is there allowing counts and ignorant
' [a.d. 350, cf. Gibbon Hist. ch. xviii. vol. ii. p. 378.]
7 Apol. A r. 87.
B George bad been pork-contractor to the army, and had been
detected in peculation, vid. de Syn. 37, note 3.
9 Constantine called the Arians by this title after the philo-
sopher Porpliyry, the great enemy of Christianity. Socrates has
preserved the Edict. Hist. i. 9.
•0 De Morle Arii j, &c. ' Encycl. 2 ; Apol. Ar. 36.
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS.
289
eunuchs to exercise authority in Ecclesiastical
matters, and to make known by their edicts
the decisions of those who bear the name
of Bishops? He is guilty of all manner of
falsehood for the sake of this unholy heresy.
At a former time he sent out Philagrius as
Prefect a second time^, in opposition to the
opinion of his father, and we see what has
taken place now. Nor 'for his brother's
sake' does he speak the truth. For after
his death he wrote not once nor twice, but
three times to the Bishop, and repeatedly
promised him that he would not change his
behaviour towards him, but exhorted him
to be of good courage, and not suffer any
one to alarm him, but to continue to abide
in his Church in perfect security. He also
sent his commands by Count Asterius, and
Palladius the Notary, to Felicissimus, who
was then Duke, and to the Prefect Nestorius,
that if either Philip the Prefect, or any other
should venture to form any plot against Atha-
nasius, they should prevent it.
52. The Emperor has no right to rule the
Church.
Wherefore when Diogenes came, and Syri-
anus laid in wait for us, both he and we^* and
the people demanded to see the Emperor's
letters, supposing that, as it is wTitten, ' Let
not a falsehood be spoken before the kings ;'
so when a king has made a promise, he will
not lie, nor change. If then ' for his brother's
sake he complied,' why did he also write those
letters upon his death ? And if he wrote them
for ' his memory's sake,' why did he afterwards
behave so very unkindly towards him, and
persecute the man, and write what he did,
alleging a judgment of Bishops, while in truth
he acted only to please himself? Nevertheless
his craft has not escaped detection, but we
have the proof of it ready at hand. For if
a judgment had been passed by Bishops, what
concern had the Emperor with it? Or if it
was only a threat of the Emperor, what need
in that case was there of the so-named Bishops?
When was such a thing heard of before from
the beginning of the world ? When did a judg-
ment of the Church receive its validity from
the Emperor? or rather when was his decree
ever recognised by the Church ? There have
been many Councils held heretofore ; and
many judgments passed by the Church ; but
the Fathers never sought the consent of the
Emperor thereto, nor did the Emperor busy
» § 7. note 1.
2" The amanuensis here appears to speak for himself: but the
Benedictines, with great probability, conjecture Tore koa for avTos
Tt Kat. 3 Ecclus. vii. 5 \.ApoL Const. 2J.
himself with the affairs of the Church 3*. The
Apostle Paul had friends among them of
Caesar's household, and in his Epistle to the
Philippians he sent salutations from them ;
but he never took them as his associates in
Ecclesiastical judgments. Now however we
have witnessed a novel spectacle, which is a
discovery of the Arian heresy. Heretics have
assembled together with the Emperor Con-
stantius, in order that he, alleging the authority
of the Bishops, may exercise his power against
whomsoever he pleases, and while he per-
secutes may avoid the name of persecutor;
and that they, supported by the Emperor's
government, may conspire the ruin of whom-
soever they will* and these are all such as are
not as impious as themselves. One might
look upon their proceedings as a comedy
which they are performing on the stage, in
which the pretended Bishops are actors, and
Constantius the performer of their behests,
who makes promises to them, as Herod did
to the daughter of Herodias, and they dancing
before him accomplish through false accusa-
tions the banishment and death of the true
believers in the Lord.
53. Despotic interference of Constantius.
Who indeed has not been injured by their
calumnies? Whom have not these enemies
of Christ conspired to destroy? Whom has
Constantius failed to banish upon charges
which they have brought against them? When
did he refuse to hear them wilhngly? And
what is most strange, when did he permit any
one to speak against them, and did not more
readily receive their testimony, of whatever
kind it might be? Where is there a Church
which now enjoys the privilege of worshipping
Christ freely ? If a Church be a maintainer of
true piety, it is in danger ; if it dissemble, it
abides in fear. Every place is full of hy-
pocrisy and impiety, so far as he is concerned;
and wherever there is a pious person and
a lover of Christ (and there are many such
everywhere, as were the prophets and the
great Elijah) they hide themselves, if so be
that they can find a faithful friend like Obadiah,
and either they withdraw into caves and dens
of the earth, or pass their lives in wandering
about in the deserts. These men in their
madness prefer such calumnies against theui
3» [This may well be taken as a statement of what ought to be ;
but in view of the history of the fourth century it can only be
called a rhetorical exaggeration. See supr. § 15, Apol. Ar. 36,
exeAeuo-av, Prolegg. ch. ii. § 6 (i) init., and I).C.A. p. 475, with
reff. there given.]
4 015 av kdiktam, and just before S>v av eSe'Aoi. [And more
strikingly just below, g 53 fin. a 6ekov<Ti npaTrei., sttiI /cal avrbi
oirep riOeKiv TJ/covcre uap' aii-ruii/.] This is a very familiar phrase
with Athan. i.e. u><; eSeArjcrei', avrsp iSeXriaav, orav ()ekui<n.v, o6t
eOfkyia-av, Ix-c. &c. Some instances are given supr. AJiol. Ar. 3,
note 3, and de Syn. 13, note 6.
VOL. IV.
Ji
290
HISTORIA ARIANORUM.
as Jezebel invented against Naboth, and the
Jews against the Saviour ; while the Emperor,
who is the patron of the heresy, and wishes
to pervert the truth, as Ahab wished to change
the vineyard into a garden of herbs, does
whatever they desire him to do, for the sug-
gestions he receives from them are agreeable
to his own wishes.
54. Constantius gives up the Alexandrian
Churches to the heretics.
Accordingly he banished, as I said before,
the genuine Bishops, because they would not
profess impious doctrines, to suit his own
pleasure; and so he now sent Count Hera-
clius to proceed against Athanasius, who has
publicly made known his decrees, and an-
nounced the command of the Emperor to be,
that unless they complied with the instructions
contained in his letters, their breads should be
taken away, their idols overthrown, and the
persons of many of the city-magistrates and
people delivered over to certain slavery.
After threatening them in this manner, he
was not ashamed to declare publicly with
a loud voice, 'The Emperor disclaims Atha-
nasius, and has commanded that the Churches
be given up to the Arians.' And when all
wondered to hear this, and made signs to
one another, exclaiming, ' What ! has Con-
stantius become a heretic?' instead of blushing
as he ought, the man all the more obliged
the senators and heathen magistrates and
wardens ^ of the idol temples to subscribe
to these conditions, and to agree to receive
as their Bishop whomsoever? the Emperor
should send them. Of course Constantius
was strictly upholding the Canon of the
Church, when he caused this to be done ;
when instead of requiring letters from the
Church, he demanded them of the market-
place, and instead of the people he asked
them of the wardens of the temples. He was
conscious that he was not sending a Bishop
to preside over Christians, but a certain intruder
for those who subscribed to his terms.
55. Irruption into the great Church.
The Gentiles accordingly, as purchasing by
their compliance the safety of their idols, and
certain of the trades^, subscribed, though un-
willingly, from fear of the threats which he
S Cf. % 31, 63, note 6. * Encycl. ? S. ^
7 [Observe that George has not yet arrived. Heraclius arrived
' as his precursor ' {supr. § 48) along with Cataphroiiius the new
Prefect, on Juneio, 356 ; see § 55.]
8 rmv epyaffiw^, — trades, or workmen, vid. supr. Apol. Ar. 15
Montfaucon has a note upon the word in the Collect. Nov. t. 2.
p. xxvi. where he corrects his Latin in loc. of the former passage
very nearly in conformity to the rendering given of it above, p. 108.
' In Onomastico monuimus, hie epyacrias " officinaruin operas"
«ommodius expnmere.' And he quotes an inscription [C.I.G. L
3924] Toi/TO TO ripuiov (TTS^avoi ^ epvatria tuv §a.<^i<i>v.
J had held out to them ; just as if the matter
had been the appointment of a general, or
other magistrate. Indeed what, as heathen,
were they likely to do, except whatever was
pleasing to the Emperor? But the people
having assembled in the great Church (for
it was the fourth day of the week). Count
Heraclius on the following day9 takes with
him Cataphronius the Prefect of Egypt, and
Faustinus the Receiver-General ^°, and Bithy-
nus a heretic ; and together they stir up the
younger men of the common multitude" who
worshipped idols, to attack the Church, and
stone the people, saying that such was the
Emperor's command. As the time of dis-
missal however had arrived,, the greater part
had already left the Church, but there being
a few women still remaining, they did as the
men had charged them, whereupon a piteous
spectacle ensued. The few women had just
risen from prayer and had sat down when
the youths suddenly came upon them naked
with stones and clubs. Some of them the
godless wretches stoned to death ; they
scourged with stripes the holy persons of
the Virgins, tore off their veils and exposed
their heads, and when they resisted the
insult, the cowards kicked them with their
feet. This was dreadful, exceedingly dread-
ful ; but what ensued was worse, and more
intolerable than any outrage. Knowing the
holy character of the virgins, and that their
ears were unaccustomed to pollution, and
that they were better able to bear stones
and swords than expressions of obscenity, they
assailed them with such language. This the
Arians suggested to the young men, and
laughed at all they said and did ; while the
holy Virgins and other godly women fled from
such words as they would from the bite of
asps, but the enemies of Christ assisted them
in the work, nay even, it may be, gave utter-
ance to the same ; for they were well-pleased
with the obscenities which the youths vented
upon them.
56. The great Church pillaged.
After this, that they might fully execute the
orders they had received (for this was what
they earnestly desired, and what the Count
and the Receiver-General instructed them to
do), they seized upon the seats, the throne, and •
9 [i.e. Thursday, June 13, 356, three days after the arrival of
Heraclius and Cataphronius. The church in question was appar-
entiy that of Theonas, or the Caesareum (p. 29S). According to
Hist. Aceph. the churches were formally handed over to the
Arians on June 15, i.e. on the Saturday. The Hist. Aceph.
here fits minutely the scattered notices of Athan. : see Prolegg.
ch. ii. § 8 (i).] '° Catholicus, ib. 10, note 4.
" Twi/ ayopaiui', vid. Acts xvii. 5. ayopa has been used jiut
I above, vid. Suicer. Thesawr. in voc.
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS.
291
the table which was of wood', and the curtains'
of the Church, and whatever else they were
able, and carrying them out burnt them before
the doors in the great street, and cast frank-
incense upon the flame. Alas ! who will not
weep to hear of these things, and, it may be,
close his ears, that he may not have to endure
the recital, esteeming it hurtful merely to listen
to the account of such enormities ? Moreover
they sang the praises of their idols, and said,
* Constantius hath become a heathen, and the
Arians have acknowledged our customs ;' for
indeed they scruple not even to pretend
heathenism, if only their heresy may be estab-
lished. They even were ready to sacrifice a
heifer which drew the water for the gardens in
the Caesareums ; and would have sacrificed it,
had it not been a female^ ; for they said that
it was unlawful for such to be offered among
them.
57. Thus acted the impiouss Arians in con-
junction with the heathens, thinking that these
things tended to our dishonour. But Divine
justice reproved their iniquity, and wrought a
great and remarkable sign, thereby plainly
shewing to all men, that as in their acts of
impiety they had dared to attack none other
but the Lord, so in these proceedings also they
were again attempting to do dishonour unto
Him. This was more manifestly proved by
the marvellous event which now came to pass.
One of these licentious youths ran into the
Church, and ventured to sit down upon the
throne ; and as he sat there the wretched man
uttered with a nasal sound some lascivious
song. Then rising up he attempted to pull
away the throne, and to drag it towards him ;
he knew not that he was drawing down ven-
geance upon himself. For as of old the inhab-
itants of Azotus, when they ventured to touch^
the Ark, which it was not lawful for them even
to look upon, were immediately destroyed by
it, being first grievously tormented by emerods ;
so this unhappy person who presumed to drag
the throne, drew it upon himself, and, as if
Divine justice had sent the wood to punish
him, he struck it into his own bowels ; and
» Vid. Fleury's Church History, xxii. 7. p. 129, note k. [Oxf.
tr. 1843.] By specilying the material, Athan. implies that altars
were sometimes not of wood. [cf. D.C.A. 61 sq.'l
' Curtains were at the entrance, and before the chancel, vid.
Bingh. Autiqu. viii. 6. \ 8. Hofman. Lex. in voc. velum, also
Chrysost Horn. iii. in Eph.
3 The royal quarter in Alexandria, vid. ApoL Const. 15. In
other Palatia an aqueduct was necessary, e.g. vid. Cod. Theod.
XV. 2. even at Daphne, though it abounded in springs, ibid, i, 2.
4 Vid. Herodot. ii. 41. who says that cows and heifers were
sacred to Isis. vid. Jablonski Pantheon Mg. i. i. } 15. who says
tiiat Isis was worshipped in the shape of a cow, and therefore the
cows received divine honours. Yet bulls were sacrificed to Apis,
ibit'. iv. 2. \ 9. vid. also Schvveigha;user in loc. Herod.
5 Vid note on d,: Deer. \ i. This is a remarkable instance
of the special and technical sense of the words, evcre^eia, acre^oi/VTes,
&c., being here contrasted with pagan blasphemy, &c.
* 1 Sam. 5, 6. I
U
instead of carrying out the throne, he brought
out by his blow his own entrails ; so that the
throne took away his life, instead of his taking
it away. For, as it is 7 written of Judas, his
bowels gushed out ; and he fell down and was
carried away, and the day after he died.
Another also entered the Church with boughs
of trees?*, and, as in the Gentile manner he
waved them in his hands and mocked, he
was immediately struck with blindness, so as
straightway to lose his sight, and to know no
longer where he was ; but as he was about to
fall, he was taken by the hand and supported
by his companions out of the place, and when
on the following day he was with difficulty
brouglit to his senses, he knew not either what
he had done or suffered in consequence of his
audacity.
58. General Persecution at Alexandria.
The Gentiles, when they beheld these things,
were seized with fear, and ventured on no
further outrage ; but the Arians were not even
yet touched with shame, but, hke the Jews when
they saw the miracles, were faithless and would
not believe, nay, like Pharaoh, they were har-
dened; they too having placed their hopes
below, on the Emperor and his eunuchs. They
permitted the Gentiles, or rather the mure
abandoned of the Gentiles, to act in the manner
before described; for they found that Faustinus,
who is the Receiver-General by style, but is a
vulgar^ person in habits, and profligate in
heart, was ready to play his part with them in
these proceedings, and to stir up the heathen.
Nay, they undertook to do the like themselves,
that as they had modelled their heresy upon
all other heresies together 9, so they might
share their wickedness with the more depraved
of mankind. What they did through the
instrumentality of others I described above ;
the enormities they committed themselves
surpass the bounds of all wickedness ; and
they exceed the malice of any hangman.
Where is there a house which they did not
ravage ? where is there a family they did not
plunder on pretence of searching for their
opponents ? where is there a gartlen they did
not trample under foot ? what tomb '° did they
not open, pretending they were seeking for
Athanasius, though their sole object was to
plunder and spoil all that came in their way ?
How many men's houses were sealed up' !
The contents of how many persons' lodgings
did they give away to the soUUers who assis-
7 Actsi. 18. . .
7" [fieTo. QaXKiav, (fiaWaii/ ' pro vera lectione probabiuter habell
posse arbitror.' Montf. Coil. Nov. t. ii.]
8 ctyopalov, see § 55, note 11, above.
9 Cf. Ep. ^g. 17, and § 31:, note 8. »« Vid. Socr. Hist. IV. 13.
» Apol. Fug. 6.
292
HISTORIA ARIANORUM.
ted them ! Who had not experience of their
wickedness ? Who that met them but was
obliged to hide himself in the market-place?
Did not many an one leave his house from
fear of them, and pass the night in the
desert ? Did not many an one, while anxious
to preserve his property from them, lose the
greater part of it? And who, however in-
experienced of the sea, did not choose rather
to commit himself to it, and to risk all its
dangers, than to witness their threatenings ?
Many also changed their residences, and re-
moved from street to street, and from the city
to the suburbs. And many submitted to severe
fines, and when they were unable to pay,
borrowed of others, merely that they might
escape their machinations.
59. Violence of Sebastianus.
For they made themselves formidable to all
men, aiKi treated all with great arrogance,
using the name of the Emperor, and threaten-
ing them with his displeasure. They had to
assist them in their wickedness the Duke Sebas-
tianus, a Manichee, and a profligate young
man; the^ Prefect, the Count, and the Re-
ceiver-General as a dissembler. Many Virgins
who condemned their impiety, and professed
the truth, they brought out from the houses ;
others they insulted as they walked along the
streets, and caused their heads to be uncovered
by their young men. They also gave permis-
sion to the females of their party to insult
whom they chose ; and although the holy and
faithful women withdrew on one side, and gave
them the way, yet they gathered round them
like Bacchanals and Furies 3, and esteemed it a
misfortune if they found no means to injure
them, and spent that day sorrowfully on which
they were unable to do them some mischief.
In a word, so cruel and bitter were they against
all, that all men called them hangmen, murder-
ers, lawless, intruders, evil-doers, and by any
other name rather than that of Christians.
60. Martyrdom of Eutychius.
Moreover, imitating the savage practices of
Scythians, they seized upon Eutychius a Sub-
deacon, a man who had served the Church
honourably, and causing him to be scourged
on the back with a leather whip, till he was at
the point of death, they demanded that he
should be sent away to the mines ; and not
simply to any mine, but to that of Phaeno^,
== Cf. § 55.
3 Vid. de Syn. 31, note 4, also Greg. Naz. Orat. 35. 3. Epipn.
Har. 69. 3. Theod. Hist. i. 3. (p. 730. ed. Schuize).
4 The mines of Phaeno lie almost in a direct line between Petrae
and Zoar, which is at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea.
They formed the place of punishment of Confessors in the Maximi-
nian Persecution, Euseb. de jMart. Pal. 7, and in the Arian
Persecution at Alexandria after Athan. Theod. y/. E. iv. 19, p. 996.
where even a condemned murderer is hardly
able to live a few days. And what was most
unreasonable in their conduct, they would not
permit him even a few hours to have his
wounds dressed, but caused him to be sent off
immediately, saying, * If this is done, all men
will be afraid, and henceforward will be on our
side.' After a short interval, however, being
unable to accomplish his journey to the mine
on account of the pain of his stripes, he died
on the way. He perished rejoicing, having
obtained the glory of martyrdom. But the mis-
creants were not even yet ashamed, but in the
words of Scripture, 'having bowels without
mercy s,' they acted accordingly, and now again
perpetrated a satanic deed. When the people
prayed them to spare Eutychius and besought
them for him, they caused four honourable and
free citizens to be seized, one of whom was
Hermias who washed the beggars' feet^ ; and
after scourging them very severely, the Duke
cast them into the prison. But the Arians, who
are more cruel even than Scythians, when they
had seen that they did not die from the stripes
they had received, complained of the Duke
and threatened, saying, ' We will write and tell
the eunuchs 7, that he does not flog as we wish.'
Hearing this he was afraid, and was obliged to
beat the men a second time ; and they being
beaten, and knowing for what cause they suf-
fered and by whom they had been accused,
said only, ' We are beaten for the sake of the
Truth, but we will not hold communion with
the heretics : beat us now as thou wilt ; God
will judge thee for this.' The impious men
wished to expose them to danger in the prison,
that they might die there ; but the people of
God observing their time, besought him for
them, and after seven days or more they were
set at liberty.
61. Ill-treatment of the Poor.
But the Arians, as being grieved at this,
again devised another yet more cruel and un-
holy deed ; cruel in the eyes of all men, but
well suited to their antichristian heresy. The
Lord commanded that we should remember the
poor; He said, 'Sell that -ye have, and give
alms;' and again, 'I was a hungred, and ye
gave Me meat ; I was thirsty, and ye gave M'''
drink ; for inasmuch as ye have done it unto
Phaeno was once the seat of a Bishopric, which sent a Bishop to
the Councils at Ephesus, the Ecumenical, and the Latrocinium.
vid. Reland. Palestine, pp. 951, 952. Montfaucon in loc. Athan.
Le Quien. Or. Christ, t. 3. p. 745- 5 Prov. xii. 10.
6 'Ep/iieia>/ Aovoi/ra Tovs ai'eldSous, Inauspicato verterat Her-
mantius, 'qui angiportos non pervios lavabat ;' Montfaucon, Coll.
Nov. t. 2. p. xliii. who translates as above, yet not satisfactorily,
especially as there is no article before AoiJoi/ro. Tillemont says,
'qui avait "quelle charge" dans la police de la ville,' understand-
ing by dvefofiot, ' inclusi sive incarcerati hL.mines ; ' whereas they
are ' ii qui kva. ras efdSovs in exitibus viarum, stipein cogunt.'
Montf. ibid. For the custom of washing the feet vid. Bisgh.
Antiqu. xii. 4. § 10. 7 Cf. \ 38.
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS.
293
one of these little ones, ye have done it unto
Me^.' But these men, as being in truth
opposed to Christ, have presumed to act con-
trary to His will in this respect also. For when
the Duke gave up the Churches to the Arians,
and the destitute persons and widows were
unable to continue any longer in them, the
widows sat down in places which the Clergy
entrusted with the care of them appointed.
And when the Arians saw that the brethren
readily ministered unto them and supported
them, they persecuted the widows also, beating
them on the feet, and accused those who gave
to them before the Duke. This was done by
means of a certain soldier named Dynamius.
And it was well-pleasing to Sebastian 9, for
there is no mercy in the Manichaeans ; nay, it
is considered a hateful thing among them to
shew mercy to a poor man 9». Here then was
a novel subject of complaint ; and a new kind
of court now first invented by the Arians.
Persons were brought to trial for acts of kind-
ness which they had performed ; he who shewed
mercy was accused, and he who had received a
benefit was beaten ; and they wished rather
that a poor man should suffer hunger, than
that he who was willing to shew mercy should
give to him. Such sentiments these modern
Jews, for such they are, have learned from the
Jews of old, who when they saw him who had
been blind from his birth recover his sight, and
him who had been a long time sick of the palsy
made whole, accused ^ the Lord who had be-
stowed these benefits upon them, and judged
them to be transgressors who had experienced
His goodness^
62. Ill-treatment of the poor.
Who was not struck with astonishment at
these proceedings ? Who did not execrate
both the heresy, and its defenders ? Who
failed to perceive that the Arians are indeed
more cruel than wild beasts ? For they had no
prospect of gain ? from their iniquity, for the
sake of which they might have acted in this
manner; but they rather increased the hatred
of all men against themselves. They thought
by treachery and terror to force certain persons
into their heresy, so that they might be brought
to communicate with them ; but the event
turned out quite the contrary. The sufferers
endured as martyrdom whatever they inflicted
upon them, and neither betrayed nor denied
the true faith in Christ. And those who were
without and witnessed their conduct, and at
8 Luke xii. 33 ; Matt. xxv. 3s, 40. 9 Cf. § 81.
9* [They would give money, but thought it wrong to give food.
Ath. was possibly unaware of this distinction. See Bright, Introd.
to Hist. Tracts, p. Ixxi. note 7.] ' Joh. ix. ; Matt. ix. 3.
a Vid. de Deer. §1. 3 Cf. note on Orat. i. § 8.
last even the heathen, when they saw these
things, execrated them as antichristian, as cruel
executioners ; for human nature is prone to
pity and sympathise with the poor. But thesj
men have lost even the common sentiments of
humanity ; and that kindness which they would
have desired to meet with at the hands of
others, had themselves been sufferers, they
would not permit others to receive, but em-
ployed against them the severity and authority
of the magistrates, and especially of the Duke,
63. Ill-treatment of the Presbyters and Deacons.
What they have done to the Presbyters and
Deacons; how they drove them into banish-
ment under sentence passed upon them by the
Duke and the magistrates, causing the soldiers
to bring out their kinsfolk from the houses ♦,
and Gorgonius, the commander of the polices to
beat them with stripes ; and how (most cruel
act of all) with much insolence they plundered
the loaves^ of these and of those who were now
dead ; these things it is impossible for words
to describe, for their cruelty surpasses all the
powers of language. What terms could one
employ which might seem equal to the subject?
What circumstances could one mention first,
so that those next recorded would not be found
more dreadful, and the next more dreadful
still ? All their attempts and iniquities ^ were
full of murder and impiety ; and so unscrupu
lous and artful are they, that they endeavour
to deceive by promises of protection, and by
bribing with money ^, that so, since they can-
not recommend themselves by fair means, they
may thereby make some display to impose on
the simple.
PART vni.
Persecution in Egypt.
64. Who would call them even by the name
of Gentiles ; much less by that of Christians ?
Would any one regard their habits and feelings
as human, and not rather those of wild beasts,
seeing their cruel and savage conduct? They
are more worthless than public hangmen ,
more audacious than all other heretics. To
the Gentiles they are much inferior, and stand
far apart and separate from them ^ I have
heard from our fathers, and I believe their
report to be a faithful one, that long ago, when
4 I 59. S oTpttTrj-yoO, infr. § 81, note.
6 Toi/s apTOvs [i.e. their stated allowance : see also Apol. Ar
18], the word occurs Encycl. 4, Apol. Fug. 6, supr. §§ ji, 54, in
this sense ; but Nannius, Hermant, and Tillemont, with some
plausibility understand it as a Latin term naturalized, and trans-
late ' most cruel of all, with much insolence they tore the " limbs "
of the dead,' alleging that merely to take away 'loaves' was not
so ' cruel ' as to take away 'lives,' which the Arians had done [th :
parallels refute this, apart from linguistic grounds].
I 1 a<7-e|8^fiaTo. ** p. 227, note 8, infr. § 7--. ■ .vf 2c, ."
294
HISTORIA ARIANORUM.
a persecution arose in the time ^ of Maximian,
the grandfather of Constantius, the Gentiles
concealed our brethren the Christians, who
were sought after, and frequently suffered the
loss of their own substance, and had trial of
imprisonment, solely that they might not betray
the fugitives. They protected those who fled
to them for refuge, as they would have done
their own persons, and were determined to run
all risks on their behalf. But now these ad-
mirable persons, the inventors of a new heresy,
act altogether the contrary part ; and are dis-
tinguished for nothing but their treachery.
They have appointed themselves as execu-
tioners, and seek to betray all alike, and make
those who conceal others the objects of their
plots, esteeming equally as their enemy both
him that conceals and him that is concealed.
So murderous are they ; so emulous in their
evil-doings of the wickedness of Judas.
65. Martyrdom of Secundus of Barka.
The crimes these men have committed can-
not adequately be described. I would onlj^ say,
that as I write and wish to enumerate all their
deeds of iniquity, the thought enters my mind,
whether this heresy be not the fourth daughter
of the horse-leach 3 in the Proverbs, since after
so many acts of injustice, so many murders, it
hath not yet said, ' It is enough.' No \ it still
rages, and goes about* seeking after those
whom it has not yet discovered, while those
whom it has already injured, it is eager to
injure anew. After the night attack, after
the evils committed in consequence of it, after
the persecution brought about by Heraclius,
they cease not yet to accuse us falsely before
the Emperor (and they are confident that as
impious persons they will obtain a hearing),
desiring that something more than banishment
may be inflicted upon us, and that hereafter
those who do not consent to their impieties
may be destroyed. Accordingly, being now
emboldened in an extreme degree, that most
abandoned Secundus s of PentapoUs, and Ste-
phanus^ his accomplice, conscious that their
heresy was a defence of any injusdce they
might commit, on discovering a Presbyter at
Barka who would not comply with their de-
sires (he was called Secundus, being of the
same name, but not of the same faith with the
heretic), they kicked him till he died?. While
he was thus suffering he imitated the Saint, and
said, ' Let no one avenge my cause before
human judges ; I have the Lord for my avenger.
a [303 A.D.] 3 Prov. xxx. 15.
4 ■nipUfiX"''-^-^ I Pet. V. 8. supr. § 20, and ad Adelph. § 2 fin.
5 Ep. Mg. 7. 6 Cf. Hist. Aceph. ix., de Syn. 12, Thdt.
H.E. 11. 28.
7 In like manner the party of Dioscorus at the Latrocinium,
or Eutychian Council of Ephesus, a.d. 449, kicked to death Fla-
vian, Patriarch of Constantinople.
for whose sake I suffer these things at their
hands.' They however were not moved with
pity at these words, nor did they feel any
awe of the sacred season ; for it was during
the time of Lent^ that they thus kicked the
man to death.
66. Persecution the weapon of Arianism.
O new heresy, that hast put on the whole
devil in impiety and wicked deeds ! For in
truth it is but a lately invented evil ; and al-
though certain heretofore appear to have
adopted its doctrines, yet they concealed them,
and were not known to hold them. But Eu-
sebius and Arius, like serpents coming out of
their holes, have vomited forth the poison of
this impiety; Arius daring to blaspheme openly,
and 9 Eusebius defending his blasphemy. He
was not however able to support the heresy,
until, as I said before, he found a patron ' for
it in the Emperor. Our fathers called an
Ecumenical Council, when three hundred of
them, more or less 2, met together and con-
demned the Arian heresy, and all declared that
it was alien and strange to the faith of the
Church. Upon this its supporters, perceiving
that they were dishonoured, and had now no
good ground of argument to insist upon, de-
vised a different method, and attempted to
vindicate it by means of external power. And
herein one may especially admire the novelty
as well as wickedness of their device, and
how they go beyond all other heresies. For
these support their madness by persuasive
arguments calculated to deceive the simple ;
the Greeks, as the Apostle has said, make their
attack with excellency and persuasiveness of
speech, and with plausible fallacies ; the Jews,
leaving the divine Scriptures, now, as the
Apostle again has said, contend about * fables
and endless genealogies 3;' and the Manichees
and Valentinians with them, and others, cor-
rupting the divine Scriptures, put forth fables
in terms of their own inventions. But the
Arians are bolder than them all, and have
shewn that the other heresies are but their
younger sisters *, whom, as I have said, they
surpass in impiety, emulating them all, and
especially the Jews in their iniquity. For as
the Jews, when they were unable to prove the
charges which they pretended to allege against
Paul, straightway led him to the chief captain
and the governor ; so likewise these men, who
surpass the Jews in their devices, make use
only of the power of the judges ; and if any
one so much as speaks against them, he is
dragged before the Governor or the General.
8 Encyc. 4.
2 Apol. Ar. 23.
9 Apol. Ar. sg.
3 I Tim. i. 4.
• §45-
t Cf. § 31
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS.
295
67. Arianism worse than other hej-est'es, because
of Persecution.
The other heresies also, when the very Truth
has refuted them on the clearest evidence, are
wont to be silent, being simply confounded by
their conviction. But this modern and ac-
cursed heresy, when it is overthrown by argu-
ment, when it is cast down and covered with
shame by the very Truth, forthwith endeavours
to coerce by violence and stripes and im-
prisonment those whom it has been unable to
persuade by argument, thereby acknowledging
itself to be anything rather than godly. For
it is the part of true godliness not to compel s,
but to persuade, as I said before. Thus our
Lord Himself, not as employing force, but as
offering to their free choice, has said to all,
' If any man will follow after Me^;' and to His
disciples, ' Will ye also go away??' This heresy,
however, is altogether alien from godliness ;
and therefore how otherwise should it act, than
contrary to our Saviour, seeing also that it has
enlisted that enemy of Christ, Constantius, as
it were Antichrist himself^, to be its leader in
impiety? He for its sake has earnestly en-
deavoured to emulate Saul in savage cruelty.
For when the priests gave victuals to David,
Saul commanded, and they were all destroyed,
in number three hundred and five 9 ; and this
man, now that all avoid the heresy, and con-
fess a sound faith in the Lord, annuls a
Council of full three hundred Bishops, ban-
ishes the Bishops themselves, and hinders the
people from the practice of piety, and from
their prayers to God, preventing their public
5 The early theory about persecution seems to have been this, —
that that was a bad cause which ' depended ' upon it, but that,
when a 'cause' was good, there was nothing wrong in using force
in due 'subordination' to argument [so Pius IX. in Encycl.
' (Quanta cura,' speaks of the ' officiiim coercendi sancitis poenis
violatores catholicEe religionis] ; that there was as little impropriety
in the civil magistrate's inducing ' individuals ' by force, when they
were incapable of higher motives, as by those secular blessings
which follow on Christianity. Our Lord's kingdom was not of
this world, that is, it did not depend on this world ; but, as sub-
duing, engrossing, and swaying this world, it at times conde-
scended to make use of this world's vve.\pons against itself. The
simple question was 'whetlier a cause depended on force for its
existence.' S. Athanasius declared and the event proved, that
Arianism was so dependent. When Emperors ceased to persecute,
Arianism ceased to be; it had no life in itself. Again, all cruel
persecution, or long continued, or on a large scale, was wrong,
as arguing 'an absence' of moral and rational grounds in the
' cause' so maintained. Again, there was an evident ' impropriety '
in ecclesiastical functionaries using secular weapons, as there
would be in their engaging in a secular pursuit, or forming secular
connections ; whereas the soldier might as suitably, and should
as dutifully, defend religion with the sword, as the scholar with
his pen. And further there was an abhorrence of cruelty natural
to us, which it was a duty to cherish and mnintain. All this being
considered, there is no inconsistencj' in S. Athanasius denouncing
persecution, and in Theodosius decreeing that ' the heretical
teachers, who usurped the sacred titles of Bishops or Presbyters,'
should be ' exposed to the heavy penalties of exile and confiscation.'
Gibbon, Nisi. ch. 27. For a list of passages from the Fathers
on the subject, vid. Limborch on the Inquisition, vol. i. Bellarmin.
de Laicis, c. 21, 22, and of authors in favour of persecution, vid.
Gerhard de Magistr. Polit. p. 741, &c. [But vide supr., Apol.
Fug. 23 : ' persecution is a device of the devil ; ' see also Socr.
vii. 3.] "^ Matt. xvi. 24. 7 John vi. 67.
8 Cf. De Syn, 5, note 10. 9 i Sam. xxii. 18, LXX.
assemblies. And as Saul overthrew Nob, the
city of the priests, so this man, advancing even
further in wickedness, has given up the
Churches to the impious. And as he hon-
oured Doeg the accuser before the true priests,
and persecuted David, giving ear to the Ziph-
ites; so this man prefers heretics to the
godly, and still persecutes them that flee from
him, giving ear to his own eunuchs, who
falsely accuse the orthodox. He does not
perceive that whatever he does or writes in
behalf of the heresy of the Arians, involves an
attack ' upon the Saviour.
68. Constantius worse than Saul, Ahab, and
Pilate. His past conduct to his own relations.
Ahab himself did not act so cruelly towards
the priests of God, as this man has acted
towards the Bishops. For he was at least
pricked in his conscience, when Naboth had
been murdered, and was afraid at the sight ^ of
Elijah, but this man neither reverenced the
great Hosius, nor was wearied or pricked in
conscience, after banishing so many Bishops ;
but like another Pharaoh, the more he is afflic-
ted, the more he is hardened, and imagines
greater wickedness day by day. And the most
extraordinary instance of his iniquity was the
following. It happened that when the Bishops
were condemned to banishment, certain other
persons also received their sentence on charges
of murder or sedition or theft, each according
to the quality of his offence. These men after
a few months he released, on being requested
to do so, as Pilate did Barabbas ; but the ser-
vants of Christ he not only refused to set at
liberty, but even sentenced them to more un-
merciful punishment in the place of their exile,
proving himself ' an undying evil ^^ ' to them.
To the others through congeniality of disposi-
tion he became a friend \ but to the orthodox
he was an enemy on account of their true
faith in Christ. Is it not clear to all men from
hence, that the Jews of old when they de-
manded Barabbas, and crucified the Lord,
acted but the part which these present enemies
of Christ are acting together with Constantius ?
nay, that he is even more bitter than Pilate.
For Pilate, when he perceived^ the injustice of
the deed, washed his hands ; but this man,
while he banishes the saints, gnashes his teeth
against them more and more.
69. But what wonder is it if, after he has
been led into impious errors, he is so cruel
towards the Bishops, since the common feel-
ings of humanity could not induce him to spare
I Apol. Ar. 23. 2 1 Kings xxi. 20.
2» A quotation from Homer, OJ. xii. 118.
3 Matt, xxvii. 34.
296
HISTORIA ARIANORUM.
even his own kindred. His uncles ■♦ he slew ;
his cousins he put out of the way ; he com-
miserated not the sufferings of his father-in-law,
though he had married his daughter, or of his
kinsmen ; but he has ever been a transgressor
of his oaths towards all. So likewise he treated
his brother in an unholy manner ; and now he
pretends to build his sepulchre, although he
delivered up to the barbarians his betrothed wife
Olympias, whom his brother had protected till
his death, and had brought up as his intended
consort. Moreover he attempted to set aside his
wishes, although he boasts to be his heirs ; for
so he writes, in terms which any one possessed
of but a small measure of sense would be
ashamed of. But when I compare his letters,
I find that he does not possess common under-
standing, but that his mind is solely regulated
by the suggestions of others, and that he has
no mind of his own at all. Now Solomon says,
' If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are
wicked ^.' This man proves by his actions
that he is such an unjust one, and that those
about him are wicked.
70. Inconstancy of Constantius.
How then, being such an one, and taking
pleasure in such associates, can he ever design
anything just or reasonable, entangled as he
is in the iniquity of his followers, men
who verily bewitch him, or rather who have
trampled his brains under their heels? Where-
fore he now writes letters ^% and then re-
pents that he has written them, and after
repenting is again stirred up to anger, and
then again laments his fate, and being undeter-
mined what to do, he shews a soul destitute of
understanding. Being then of such a character,
one must fairly pity him, because that under
the semblance and name of freedom he is the
slave of those who drag him on to gratify their
own impious pleasure. In a word, while through
his folly and inconstancy, as the Scripture saith?,
he is willing to comply with the desires of
others, he has given himself up to condemna-
tion, to be consumed by fire in the future judg-
ment ; at once consenting to do whatever they
wish, and gratifying them in their designs
against the Bishops, and in their exertion of
authority over the Churches. For behold, he
has now again thrown into disorder all the
Churches of Alexandria^ and of Egypt and
Libya, and has publicly given orders, that the
Bishops of the Catholic Church and faith be
cast out of their churches, and that they be
all given up to the professors of the Arian
4 [See above, p. 134, note 8, and ref. there; also Gibbon, ch.
xviii. vol. ii. p. 364 sqq.\
5 Cf. § 60, note 6. 6 Prov. xxix. 12. ("■ Cf. § 51.
V Prov. vii. 22, LXX. 8 Apol. Const. 27.
doctrines 9. The General began to carry
this order into execution ; and straightway
Bishops were sent off in chains, arid Pres-
byters and Monks bound with iron, after
being almost beaten to death with stripes.
Disorder prevails in every place ; all Egypt
and Libya are in danger, the people being
indignant at this unjust command, and see-
ing in it the preparation for the coming of
Antichrist, and beholding their property plun-
dered by others, and given up into the hands
of the heretics.
71. This wickedness unprecedented.
When was ever such iniquity heard of? when
was such an evil deed ever perpetrated, even in
times of persecution ? They were heathens who
persecuted formerly ; but they did not bring
their idols into the Churches. ZenobiaS* was
a Jewess, and a supporter of Paul of Samosata ;
but she did not give up the Churches to the
Jews for Synagogues. This is a new piece of
iniquity. It is not simply persecution, but
more than persecution, it is a prelude and pre-
paration ^° for the coming of Antichrist. Even
if it be admitted that they invented false charges
against Athanasius and the rest of the Bishops
whom they banished, yet what is this to their
later practices? What charges have they to
allege against the whole of Egypt and Libya
and PentapoUs ^ ? For they have begun no
longer to lay their plots against individuals, in
which case they might be able to frame a lie
against them ; but they have set upon all in a
body, so that if they merely choose to invent
accusations against them, they must be con-
demned. Thus their wickedness has blinded
their understanding^ ; and they have required,
without any reason assigned, that the whole
body of the Bishops shall be expelled, and
thereby they shew that the charges they framed
against Athanasius and the rest of the Bishops
whom they banished were false, and invented
for no other purpose than to support the ac-
cursed heresy of the Arian enemies of Christ.
This is now no longer concealed, but has be-
come most manifest to all men. He com-
manded Athanasius to be expelled out of the
city, and gave up the Churches to them. And
the Presbyters and Deacons that were with
him, who had been appointed by Peter and
Alexander, were also expelled and driven into
banishment; and the real Arians, who not
through any suspicions arising from circum-
stances, but on account of the heresy had been
expelled at first together with Arius himself by
» § 54-
9a [This is ' certainly false, see Encyclop. Brit., ait. Palmyra,
p. 201, note 4.] ™ I 67, note 8.
I Cf. § 3. -^ Wi^d. ii. 21.
HISTORY OF THE ARJANS.
297
the Bishop Alexander, — Secundus in Libya, in
Alexandria Euzoius^ the Chananaean, Juhus,
Amnion, Marcus, Irenseus, Zosimus, and Sara-
pion surnamed Pelycon, and in Libya Sisin-
nius, and the younger men with him, associates
in his impiety ; these have obtained possession
of the Churches.
72. Banishment of Egyptian Bishops.
And the General Sebastian wrote to the
governors and military authorities in every
place ; and the true Bishops were persecuted,
and those who professed impious doctrines
were brought in in their stead. They banished
Bishops who had grown old in orders, and
had been many years in the Episcopate,
having been ordained by the Bishop Alex-
ander; Ammonius+, Hermes, Anagamphus,
and Marcus, they sent to the Upper Oasis ;
Muis, Psenosiris, Nilammon, Plenes, Marcus,
and Athenodorus to Ammoniaca, with no
other intention than that they should perish
in their passage through the deserts. They
had no pity on them though they were suffer-
ing from illness, and indeed proceeded on
their journey with so much difficulty on ac-
count of their weakness, that they were obliged
to be carried in litters, and their sickness was
so dangerous that the materials for their burial
accompanied them. One of them indeed died,
but they would not even permit the body
to be given up to his friends for interment.
With the same purpose they banished also
the Bishop Dracontius to the desert places
about Clysma, Philo to Babylon, Adelphius
to Psinabla in the Thebais, and the Presbyters
Hierax and Dioscorus to Syene. They like-
wise drove into exile Ammonius, Agathus,
Agathodi^mon, ApoUonius, Eulogius, ApoUos,
Paphnutius, Gaius,and Flavius, ancient Bishops,
as also the Bishops Dioscorus, Ammonius,
Heraclides, and Psais ; some of whom they
gave up to work in the stone-quarries, others
they persecuted with an intention to destroy,
and many others they plundered. They ba-
nished also forty of the laity, with certain
virgins whom they had before exposed to the
fire 5; beating them so severely with rods
taken from palm-trees, that after lingering
five days some of them died, and others had
recourse to surgical treatment on account of
the thorns left in their limbs, from which they
suffered torments worse than death ^. But
what is most dreadful to the mind of any man
of sound understanding, though characteristic
of these miscreants, is this : \\ hen the virgins
during the scourging called upon the Name
3 Cf. Dep. Ar.
S Ap. Fug. 6.
4 Cf. Ap. Fug. 7.
6 lb. 7.
of Christ, they gnashed their teeth against
them with increased fury. Nay more, they
would not give up the bodies of the dead
to their friends for burial, but concealed them
that they might appear to be ignorant of
the murder. They did not however escape
detection ; the whole city perceived it, and
all men withdrew from them as executioners,
as malefactors and robbers. Moreover they
overthrew monasteries, and endeavoured to
cast monks into the fire ; they plundered
houses, and breaking into the house of certain
free citizens where the Bishop had deposited
a treasure, they plundered and took it away.
They scourged the widows on the soles of
their feet, and hindered them from receiving
their alms.
73. Character of Arian nominees.
Such were the iniquities practised by the
Arians ; and as to their further deeds of
impiety, who could hear the account of them
without shuddering ? They had caused these
venerable old men and aged Bishops to be
sent into banishment ; they now appointed
in their stead profligate heathen youths, whom
they thought to raise at once to the highest
dignity, though they were not even Catechu-
mens 7. And others who were accused of
bigamy^, and even of worse crimes, they nomi-
nated Bishops on account of the wealth and
civil power which they possessed, and sent
them out as it were from a market, upon their
giving them gold. And now more dreadful
calamities befel the people. For when they
rejected these mercenary dependents of the
Arians, so alien from themselves, they were
scourged, they were proscribed, they were
shut up in prison by the General (who did
all this readily, being a Manichee), in order
that they might no longer seek after their own
Bishops, but be forced to accept those whom
they abominated, men who were now guilty of
the same mockeries as they had before prac-
tised among their idols.
74. The Episcopal appointments of Con-
stantius a mark of Antichrist.
Will not every just person break forth into
lamentations at the sight or hearing of these
things, at perceiving the arrogance and ex-
treme injustice of these impious men? ' The
righteous lament in the place of the impious''.'
After all these things, and now that the im-
piety has reached such a pitch of audacity,
who will any longer venture to call this
7 Vid. Hallier, de Ordin. part 2. i. i, art. 2.
8 Siyuvaioi;, not Siyanot?. On the latter, vid. Suicer, Thess. in
voc. Si.ya.iJ.ia. 1 ertuU. d£ Monogani.
9 Prov. xxviii. 28, LXX.
298
HISTORIA ARIANORUM.
Costyllius^° a Christian, and not rather the
image of Antichrist? For what mark of Anti-
christ is yet wanting ? How can he in any
way fail to be regarded as that one ? or how
can the latter fail to be supposed such a one
as he is ? Did not the Arians and the Gentiles
offer those sacrifices in the great Church in
the Csesareum", and utter their blasphemies
against Christ as by His command ? And
does not the vision of Daniel thus describe^
Antichrist; that he shall make war with the
saints, and prevail against them, and exceed
all that have been before him in evil deeds,
and shall humble three kings, and speak words
against the Most High, and shall think to
change times and laws ? Now what other
person besides Constantius has ever attempted
to do these things ? He is surely such a one
as Antichrist would be. He speaks words
against the Most High by supporting this
impious heresy : he makes war against the
saints by banishing the Bishops; although
indeed he exercises this power but for a little
while ^ to his own destruction. Moreover he
has surpassed those before him in wickedness,
having devised a new mode of persecution ;
and after he had overthrown three kings,
namely Vetranio, Magnentius, and Gallus, he
straightway undertook the patronage of im-
piety; and like a giants he has dared in his
pride to set himself up against the Most
High. He has thought to change laws, by
transgressing the ordinance of the Lord given
us through His Apostles, by altering the cus-
toms of the Church, and inventing a new kind
of appointments. For he sends from strange
places, distant a fifty days' journey*, Bishops
attended by soldiers to people unwilling to
receive them ; and instead of an introduction
to the acquaintance of their people, they bring
with them threatening messages and letters
to the magistrates. Thus he sent. Gregory
from Cappadocias to Alexandria ; he trans-
ferred Germinius from Cyzicus to Sirmium ;
he removed Cecropius from Laodicea to Nico-
media.
75. Arrival of George at Alexandria, and pro-
ceedings of Cotistantiiis in Italy.
Again he transferred from Cappadocia to
Milan one Auxentius% an intruder rather
than a Christian, whom he commanded to
10 An irregularly formed diminutive, or a quasi diminutive
from Constantius, as Agathyllus from Agathocles, Heryllus from
Heracles, &c. vid. Matth. Gr. Gramm. % 102. ed. 1820. [Curtius,
S 347-] " •^/•. Const. 14, supr. § 55. ' Dan. vii. 25.
' Constantius died at 45, having openly apostatized for
about six years. Julian died at 32, after a reign of a year and
a half. vid. supr. \ 32. vid. also Bellarmin. de Notis Eccl. 17
and 18.
3 Vid. de Deer. § 32, note 8, Orat. ii. § 32, Naz. Orat. 43, 26.
Socr. Hist. V. 10, p. 268. 4 Ep. A£g. 7.
5 Encycl. a. 6 cf. de Syn. §§ i, 8, and Efi. Mg. 7.
stay there, after he had banished for his piety
towards Christ Dionysius the Bishop of the
place, a godly man. But this person was as
yet even ignorant of the Latin language, and
unskilful in everything except impiety. And
now one George, a Cappadocian, who was
contractor of stores? at Constantinople, and
having embezzled all monies that he received,
was obliged to fly, he commanded to enter
Alexandria with military pomp, and supported
by the authority of the General. Next, find-
ing one Epictetus^ a novice, a bold young
man, he loved him 9, perceiving that he
was ready for wickedness ; and by his means
he carries on his designs against those of
the Bishops whom he desires to ruin. For
he is prepared to do everything that the
Emperor wishes ; who accordingly availing
himself of his assistance, has committed at
Rome a strange act, but one truly resembling
the malice of Antichrist. Having made pre-
parations in the Palace instead of the Church,
and caused some three of his own eunuchs
to attend instead of the people, he then com-
pelled three ^ ill-conditioned spies* (for one
cannot call them Bishops), to ordain forsooth
as Bishop one Fehx3, a man worthy of them,
then in the Palace. For the people perceiv-
ing the iniquitous proceedings of the heretics
would not allow them to enter the Churches *,
and withdrew themselves far from them.
76. Tyrannous banishtnent of Bishops by
Constantius.
Now what is yet wanting to make him Anti-
christ ? or what more could Antichrist do at
his coming than this man has done ? Will he
not find when he comes that the way has been
already prepared for him by this man easily to
deceive the people? Agains, he claims to him-
self the right of deciding causes, which he
refers to the Court instead of the Church, and
presides at them in person. And strange it is
to say, when he perceives the accusers at a
7 Cf. supr. § 56, note 8. _ _
8 Epictetus above, p. 226, is called v7ro(cp£nj9, which Montfaucon
translated ' stage-player. ' 1 1 is a question whether more than ' actor '
is meant by it, alluding to the mockery of an ordination in which
he seems to have taken part. Though an Asiatic apparently by
birth, he was made Bishop of Civita Vecchia. We hear of hira
at the conference between Constantius and Liberius. Theod. H. E.
ii. 13. Then he assists in the ordination of Felix. Afterwards
lie made a martyr of S. Ruffinian by making him run before his
carriage ; and he ends his historical career by taking a chief part
among the Arians at Ariminum. vid. Tillem. t. vi. p. 380, iic.
Ughell. Hal. t. 10. p. 56. ^
9 The Greek is 'En-tKTTjTov riva . . . vewrepov . . . rjyaTrjO'ex',
opiiv, K.T.A. So in the account of the v^avio-KOi, 'O 6e 'lT)<rou$
e/xj3Ae'i//as aurco, y\yd7Ty)(T^v av-6v. Mark x. 2i.
' i.e. to keep up the canonical number ; and cf. the case of
Novatian, in Euseb. //. E. vL 43. On the custom, vid. Bingh.
Antigii. ii. 11, § 4- ^ § 48, note 5.
3 Cf. Tillemont, Mem. t. 6. p. 778. Holland. Catal. Pontif.
ch. 21. p. 390. [Dollinger, ' Fables respecting the Popes ; ' D.C. B,
ii. 480. Felix figures in the middle ages as the orthodox rival off
the 'Arian' Liberius.]
4 Cf. Theod. Hut. ii. 17. 5 §§ 44, 52.
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS.
299
loss, he takes up the accusation himself, so
that the injured party may no longer be able
to defend himself on account of the violence
which he displays. This he did in the pro-
ceedings against Athanasius. For when he
saw the boldness of the Bishops Paulinus,
Lucifer, Eusebius, and Dionysius, and how
out of the recantation of Ursacius and Valens ^
they confuted those who spoke against the
Bishop, and advised that Valens and his
fellows should no longer be believed, since
tliey had already retracted what they now
asserted, he immediately stood up? and said,
* I am now the accuser of Athanasius ; on my
account you must believe what these assert.'
And then, when they said, — ' But how can you
be an accuser, when the accused person is not
present ? for if you are his accuser, yet he is
not present, and therefore cannot be tried.
And the cause is not one that concerns Rome,
so that you should be believed as being the
Emperor; but it is a matter that concerns
a Bishop ; for the trial ought to be conducted
on equal terms both to the accuser and the
accused. And besides, how can you accuse
him ? for you could not be present to witness
the conduct of one who lived at so great
a distance from you ; and if you speak but
what you have heard from these, you ought
also to give credit to what he says ; but if you
will not believe him, while you do believe
them, it is plain that they assert these things
for your sake, and accuse Athanasius only to
gratify you ? ' — when he heard this, thinking
that what they had so truly spoken was an in-
sult to himself, he sent them into banishment ;
and being exasperated against Athanasius, he
wrote in a more savage strain, requiring that
he should suffer what has now befallen him,
and that the Churches should be given up to
the Arians, and that they should be allowed to
do whatever they pleased.
77. Constantius the precursor of Antichrist.
Terrible indeed, and worse than terrible
are such proceedings ; yet conduct suitable
to him who assumes the character of Anti-
christ. Who that beheld him taking the
lead of his pretended Bishops, and pre-
siding in Ecclesiastical causes, would not
justly exclaim that this was ' the abomination
of desolation ^ ' spoken of by Daniel ? For
having put on the profession of Christianity,
and entering into the holy places, and stand-
ing therein, he lays waste the Churches, trans-
gressing their Canons, and enforcing the ob-
servance of his own decrees. Will any one
now venture to say that this is a peaceful time
« Cf. Apol. Ar. 58.
7 §33.
S Dan. ix. ay.
with Christians, and not a time of persecution?
A persecution indeed, such as never arose be-
fore, and such as no one perhaps will again
stir up, except 'the son of lawlessness V do
these enemies of Christ exhibit, who already
present a picture of him in their own persons.
Wherefore it especially behoves us to be sober,
lest this heresy which has reached such a height
of impudence, and has diffused itself abroad
hke the 'poison of an adder '°,' as it is written
in the Proverbs, and which teaches doctrines
contrary to the Saviour ; lest, I say, this be
that 'falling away",' after which He shall be
revealed, of whom Constantius is surely the
forerunner '. Else wherefore is he so mad
against the godly? wherefore does he contend
for it as his own heresy, and call every one his
enemy who will not comply with the madnes.s
of Arius, and admit gladly the allegations of
the enemies of Christ, and dishonour so many
venerable Councils? why did he command
that the Churches should be given up to the
Arians ? was it not that, when that other
comes, he may thus find a way to enter into
them, and may take to himself him who has
prepared those places for him ? For the ancient
Bishops who were ordained by Alexander, and
by his predecessor Achillas, and by Peter
before him, have been cast out ; and those in-
troduced whom the companions of soldiers
nominated ; and they nominated only such as
promised to adopt their doctrines.
78. Alliance of Meletians with Arians.
This was an easy proposition for the Mele-
tians to comply with ; for the greater part, or
rather the whole of them, have never had a
religious education, nor are they acquainted
with the ' sound faith ^ ' in Christ, nor do they
know at all what Christianity is, or what writings
we Christians possess. For having come out,
some of them from the worship of idols, and
others from the senate, or from the first civil
offices, for the sake of the miserable exemption s
from duty and for the patronage they gained,
and having bribed* the Meletians who preceded
them, they have been advanced to this dignity
even before they had been under instruction.
And even if they pretended to have been such,
yet what kind of instruction is to be obtained
among the Meletians ? But indeed without
even pretending to be under instruction, they
came at once, and immediately were called
Bishops, just as children receive a name.
Being then persons of this description, they
thought the thing of no great consequence, nor
even supposed that piety was different from
9 3 Thess. ii. 8. 'o Prov. xxiii. 32.
" 2 Thess. ii. 3. » De Syn. s, note 10. 2 Cf. Tit. i. 13,
ii. a. 3 Cf. Ap. Ar. 56. •♦ lb. 59, Ep. yEg. 22.
300
HISTORIA ARIANORUM.
impiety. Accordingly from being Meletians
tlaey readily and speedily became Arians ; and
if the Emperor should command them to adopt
any other profession, they are ready to change
again to that also. Their ignorance of true
godliness quickly brings them to submit to the
prevailing folly, and that which happens to be
first taught them. For it is nothing to them to
be carried about by every wind ^ and tempest,
so long as they are only exempt from duty, and
obtain the patronage of men ; nor would they
scruple probably to change again ^ to what they
were before; even to become such as they were
when they were heathens. Any how, being
men of such an easy temper, and considering
the Church as a civil senate, and like heathen,
being idolatrously minded, they put on the
honourable name 7 of the Saviour, under which
they polluted the whole of Egypt, by causing
so much as the name of the Arian heresy to be
known therein. For Egypt has heretofore been
the only country, throughout which the pro-
fession of the orthodox faith was boldly main-
tained.^ ; and therefore these misbelievers have
striven to introduce jealousy there also, or
rather not they, but the devil who has stirred
them up, in order that when his herald Anti-
christ shall come, he may find that the Churches
in Egypt also are his own, and that the Mele-
tians have already been instructed in his prin-
ciples, and may recognise himself as already
formed 9 in them.
79. BeJmvioiir of the Meletians contrasted with
that of the Alexandriajt Christians.
Such is the effect of that iniquitous order
which was issued by Constantius. On the
part of the people there was displayed a ready
alacrity to submit to martyrdom, and an in-
creased hatred of this most impious heresy ;
and yet lamentations for their Churches, and
groans burst from all, while they cried unto the
Lord, ' Spare Thy people, O Lord, and give not
Thine heritage unto Thine enemies to re-
proach^;' but make haste to deliver us out
of the hand of the lawless ^. For behold, they
have not spared Thy servants, but are prepar-
ing the way for Antichrist' For the Meletians
will never resist him, nor will they care for the
truth, nor will they esteem it an evil thing to
deny Christ. They are men who have not
approached the word with sincerity ; like the
chameleon 3 they assume every various appear
ance ; they are hirehngs of any who will make
use of them. They make not the truth their
aim, but prefer before it their present pleasure ;
they say only, ' Let us eat and drink, for to-
5 Of. Eph. IV. 14. 6 A/>. Ar. 59. 63. 7 Cf. James ii. 7.
8 C.i. Aj>ol. Ar. 5a. 9 Ctr. Gal. iv. 19. ' Joel ii. 17.
2 a.v6it.<av, Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 8. 3 de Deer, i, note x.
morrow we die ♦.' Such a profession and faith-
less temper is more worthy of Epicritian s
players than of Meletians. But the faithful
servants of our Saviour, and the true Bishops
who believe with sincerity, and live not for
themselves, but for the Lord ; these faithfully
believing in our Lord Jesus Christ, and know-
ing, as I said before, that the charges which
were alleged against the truth were false, and
plainly fabricated for the sake of the Aiian
heresy (for by the recantation ^ of Ursacius and
Valens they detected the calumnies which were
devised against Athanasius, for the purpose of
removing him out of the way, and of introduc-
ing into the Churches the impieties of the
enemies of Christ) ; these, I say, perceiving all
this, as defenders and preachers of the truth,
chose rather, and endured to be insulted and
driven into banishment, than to subscribe
against him, and to hold communion with the
Arian madmen. They forgot not the lessons
they had taught to others ; yea, they know well
that great dishonour remains for the traitors,
but for them which confess the truth, the king-
dom of heaven ; and that to the careless and
such as fear Constantius will happen no good
thing ; but for them that endure tribulations
here, as sailors reach a quiet haven after a
storm, as wrestlers receive a crown after the com-
bat, so these shall obtain great and eternal joy
and delight in heaven ; — such as Joseph obtained
after those tribulations ; such as the great Daniel
had after his temptations and the manifold
conspiracies of the courtiers again.st him ; such
as Paul now enjoys, being crowned by the
Saviour ; such as the people of God every-
where expect. They, seeing these things, were
not infirm of purpose, but waxed strong in
faith 7j and increased in their zeal more and
more. Being fully persuaded of the calumnies
and impieties of the heretics, they condemn
the persecutor, and in heart and mind run to-
gether the same course with them that are per-
secuted, that they also may obtain the crown of
Confession.
80. Duty of separating from heretics.
One might say much more against this de-
testable and antichristian heresy, and might
demonstrate by many arguments that the prac-
tices of Constantius are a prelude to the coming
of Antichrist. But seeing that, as the Prophet^
has said, from the feet even to the head there is
no reasonableness in it, but it isfuU of all filthi-
ness and all impiety, so that the very name of
it ought to be avoided as a dog's vomit or the
4 I Cor. XV. 32. 5 Histrionum genus, Montf. [The
allusion is obscure. Epicrates was a comedian of the 4th. ceaU
B.C.] 6 Apol. Ar. 58.
7 Cf. Rom. iv. 20. 8 isa. i. 6.
HISTORY OF THE ARIANS.
301
poison of serpents ; and seeing that Costyllius
openly exhibits the image of the adversary 9 ;
in order that our words may not be too many,
it will be well to content ourselves with the
divine Scripture, and that we all obey the pre-
cept which it has given us both in regard to
other heresies, and especially respecting this.
That precept is as follows ; ' Depart ye, depart
ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean
thing; go ye out of the midst of them, and be
ye separate, that bear the vessels of the Lord'°.'
This may suffice " to instruct us all, so that if
any one has been deceived by them, he may go
out from them, as out of Sodom, and not return
again unto them, lest he suffer the fate of Lot's
wife ; and if any one has continued from the
beginning pure from this impious heresy, he
may glory in Christ and say, ' We have not
stretched out our hands to a strange god ^^ ;
neither have we worshipped the works of our
own hands, nor served the creature '3 more than
Thee, the God that hast created all things
through Thy word, the Only-Begotten Son our
Lord Jesus Christ, through whom to Thee the
Father together with the same Word in the
Holy Spirit be glory and power for ever and
ever. Amen.'
The Second Protest^.
81. The people of the Catholic Church in
Alexandria, which is under the government of
the most Reverend Bishop Athanasius, make
this public protest by those whose names are
under-written.
We have already protested against the noc-
turnal assault which was committed upon our-
selves and the Lord's house ; although in truth
there needed no protest in respect to proceed-
ings with which the whole city has been already
made acquainted. For the bodies of the slain
which were discovered were exposed in public,
and the bows and arrows and other arms found
in the Lord's house loudly proclaim the iniquity.
But whereas after our Protest already made,
the most illustrious Duke Syrianus endeavours
to force all men to agree with him, as though
no tumult had been made, nor any had perished
(wherein is no small proof that these things
were not done according to the wishes of the
most gracious Emperor Augustus Constantius ;
for he would not have been so much afraid of
9 Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 4. _ »o Is. Hi. 11.
" [A somewhat characteristic phrase of Athanasius.]
'* Ps. xliv. 20. 13 Ep. ^g:. 13 note i.
^ Of the two Protests referred to siipr. § 48, the first was
omitted by the copyists, as being already contained, as Mont-
faucon seems to say, in the Apology against the Aj-ians ; yet if it
be the one to which allusion is made in the beginning of the Pro-
test which follows, it is not found there, nor does it appear what
document of a.d. 356 could properly have a place in a set of papers
which end with a.d. 350.
the consequences of this transaction, had he
acted therein by command) ; and whereas also,
when we went to him, and requested him not
to do violence to any, nor to deny what had
taken place, he ordered us, being Christians, to
be beaten with clubs ; thereby again giving
proof of the nocturnal assault which has been
directed against the Church : —
We therefore make also this present Protest,
certain of us being now about to travel to the
most religious Emperor Augustus : and we
adjure Maximus the Prefect of Egypt, and the
Controllers^ in the name of Almighty God, and
for the sake of the salvation of the most religious
Augustus Constantius, to relate all these things
to the piety of Augustus, and to the authority
of the most illustrious Prefects 3. We adjure
also the masters of vessels, to publish these
things everywhere, and to carry them to the
ears of the most religious Augustus, and to the
Prefects and the Magistrates in every place, in
order that it may be known that a war has been
waged against the Church, and that, in the
times of Augustus Constantius, Syrianus has
caused virgins and many others to become
martyrs.
As it dawned upon the fifth before the Ides
of February*, that is to say, the fourteenth of
the month Mechir, while we were keeping
vigil 5 in the Lord's house, and engaged in our
prayers (for there was to be a communion on
the Preparation ^) ; suddenly about midnight,
the most illustrious Duke Syrianus attacked us
and the Church with many legions of soldiers 7
armed with naked swords and javelins and
other warlike instruments, and wearing helmets
on their heads ; and actually while we were
praying, and while the lessons were being read,
they broke down the doors. And when the
doors were burst open by the violence of the
nuiltitude, he gave command, and some of them
were shooting ; others shouting, their arms
rattling, and their swords flashing in the
light of the lamps ; and forthwith virgins
were being slain, many men trampled down,
and falling over one another as the soldiers
came upon them, and several were pierced
with arrows and perished. Some of the sol-
diers also were betaking themselves to plunder,
and were stripping the virgins, who were
more afraid of being even touched by them
than they were of death. The Bishop con-
tinued sitting upon his throne, and exhorted
all to pray. The Duke led on the attack,
having with him Hilarius the notary, whose
part in the proceedings was shewn in the
2 Ap. Ar. 73, note. 3 i.e. Prsetorian.
4 Febr. 9. 5 Ap. Const. 35 ; A/>. Fug. 24. * Friday
vid. Encyc. 4, note g. 7 i.e. more than 5.000 . '' -*. Pi^g. 24.
302
HISTORIA ARIANORUM.
sequel. The Bishop was seized, and barely
escaped being torn to pieces ; and having fallen
into a state of insensibility, and appearing as
one dead, he disappeared from among them,
and has gone we know not whither. They
were eager to kill him. And when they saw
that many had perished, they gave orders to
the soldiers to remove out of sight the bodies
of the dead. But the most holy virgins who
were left behind were buried in the tombs,
having attained the glory of martyrdom in
the times of the most religious Constantius.
Deacons also were beaten with stripes even in
the Lord's house, and were shut up there.
Nor did matters stop even here : for after all
this had happened, whosoever pleased broke
open any door that he could, and searched,
and plundered what was within. They entered
even into those places which not even all
Christians are allowed to enter. Gorgonius,
the commander of the city force ^, knows this,
for he was present. And no unimportant
evidence of the nature of this hostile assault is
afforded by the circumstance, that the armour
and javelins and swords borne by those who
entered were left in the Lord's house. They
have been hung up in the Church until this
time, that they might not be able to deny it :
and although they sent several times Dynamius
the soldier % as well as the Commander 9 of the
city police, desiring to take them away, we
8 oTponjyov. There were two orpaTijyol or duumvirs at the
head of the police force at Alexandria ; they are mentioned in the
plural in Euseb. vii. ii, where S. Dionysius speaks of their seizing
him. vid. Du Cange, Gloss. Grcec. in voc.
9 T^ tTfi rafeus, supr. § 6z, OTpariwrov.
would not allow it, until the circumstance was
known to all.
Now if an order has been given that we
should be persecuted we are all ready to suffer
martyrdom. But if it be not by order of
Augustus, we desire Maximus the Prefect of
Egypt and all the city magistrates to request
of him that they may not again be suffered
thus to assail us. And we desire also that this
our petition may be presented to him, that
they may not attempt to bring in hither any
other Bishop : for we have resisted unto
death ^°, desiring to have the most Reverend
Athanasius, whom God gave us at the begin-
ning, according to the succession of our fathers;
whom also the most religious Augustus Con-
stantius himself sent to us with letters and
oaths. And we beheve that when his Piety is
informed of what has taken place, he will be
greatly displeased, and will do nothing contrary
to his oaths, but will again give orders that our
Bishop Athanasius shall remain with us.
To the Consuls to be elected " after the
Consulship of the most illustrious Arbaethion
and CoUianus ", on the seventeenth Mechir '3^
which is the day before the Ides of February.
10 Afol. Ar. 38.
" Since the Consuls came into office on the first of January,
and were proclaimed in each city, it is strange that the Alex-
andrians here speak in February as if ignorant of their names.
The phrase, however, is found elsewhere. Thus in this very
year the Chron. Aceph. dates Jan. 5 as 'post Consulatum
Arbitionis et Loliani.' And in Socr. Hist. ii. 29, in the instance
of the year 351, when there were no Consuls, and in 346, when
there was a difference on the subject between the Emperors who
were eventually themselves Consuls, the first months are dated
in like manner from the Consuls of the foregoing year.
«* LoUianus. '3 Feb. 12, Leap year ; see note below, at
the end of Introd. to Lettert,
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST
THE ARIANS.
Written between 356 and 360.
There is no absolutely conclusive evidence as to the date of these Discourses, in fact
they would appear from tlie language of ii. i to have been issued at intervals. The best
judges, however, are agreed in assigning them to the fruitful period of the ' third exile.' The
Discourses cannot indeed be identified with the lost account of the Arian heresy addressed
to certain Egyptian monks (see Introd. to Arian Hist, supra) ; but the demand for such
a treatise may have set Athanasius upon the composition of a more coinprehensive refutation
of the heresy. It was only at this period (' Blasphemy' of Sirmium, 357) that the doctrin .1
controversy began to emerge from the mass of personalities and intrigues which had
encumbered it for the first generation after the great Council ; only now that -the various
parties were beginning to formulate their position ; only now that the great mass of Eastern
' Conservatism ' was beginning to see the nature of the issue as between the Nicene doctrine
and the essential Arianism of its more resolute opponents. The situation seemed to clear, the
time had come for gathering up the issues of the combat and striking a decisive blow. To
this situation of affairs the treatise before us exactly corresponds. Characteristic of this period
is the anxiety to conciliate and win over the so-called semi-Arians (of the type of Basil of
Ancyra) who stumbled at the oixoovaiov, but whose fundamental agreement with Athanasius was
daily becoming more clear. Accordingly we find that Athanasius pointedly avoids the famous
test word in these Discourses^ (with the exception of the fourth : see Orat. i. 20, note 5, 58,
note lo : it only occurs i. 9, note 12, but see Orat. iv. 9, 12), and even adopts (not as fully
adequate de Syn. 53, but as true so far as it goes), the ' semi-Arian ' formula ' like in essence '
{Or. i. 21, note 8, 20, 26, iii. 26, he does not use the single compound word o/Liotowo-ios : see
further, Introd. to de Synodis). Although, therefore, demonstrative proof is lacking, there is
tolerable certainty as to the date of our Discourses. And their purpose is no less manifest :
they are a decisive blow of the kind described above, aimed at the very centre of the question,
and calculated to sever the abnormal alliance between conservatives who really thought with
Athanasius and men like Valens or Eudoxius, whose real convictions, so far as they had any, were
Arian. Moreover they gather up all the threads of controversy against Arianism proper, refute
its appeal to Scripture, and leave on record for all time the issues of the great doctrinal contest
of the fourth century. They have naturally become, as Montfaucon observed, the mine whence
subsequent defenders of the Divinity of our Redgemer have drawn their material. There are
doubtless arguments which a modern writer would scarcely adopt (e.g. ii. 63, iii. 65 mii., &c.),
and the repeated labelling of the Arians as madmen (' fanatics ' in this translation), enemies of
Christ, disciples of Satan, &c., &c., is at once tedious and by its very frequency unimpressive
(see ii. 43 note 8 for Newman's famous list of animal nicknames). But the serious reader will
pass sicca pede over such features, and will appreciate ' the richness, fulness, and versatility '
of the use of Scripture, ' the steady grasp of certain primary truths, especially of the Divine
Unity and of Christ's real or genuine natural and Divine Sonship (i. 15, ii. 2—5, 22, 23, 73,
iii. 62), the keen penetration with which Arian objections are analysed (i. 14, 27, 29, ii. 26,
iii. 59), Arian imputations disclaimed, Arian statements old and new, the bolder and the more
cautious, compared, Arian evasions pointed out, Arian logic traced to its conclusions, and
Arianism shewn to be inconsistent, irreverent' (Bright, Introd. p. Ixviii.). Above all, we see in
« Not that he was willing to suppress the term and surrender the Nicene cause, far from it ; but he sees the relative importance of
things and words. This shews the absurdity of the taunt, that the Nicene theologians fought feiociously over a single iota.
304 FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
these Discourses what strikes us in all the writings of Athanasius from the de Incarnatione to
the end, his firm hold of the Soteriological aspect of the question at issue, of its vital import-
ance to the reality of Redemption and Grace, to the reahty of the knowledge of God vouchsafed
to sinful man in Christ (ii. 69, 70, of. i. 35, 49, 50, ii. 67, &c., &c). The Theology and
Christology of Athanasius is rooted in the idea of Redemption : our fellowship with God,
our adoption as sons of God, would be unaccomplished, had not Christ imparted to us what
was His Own to give (i. 12, 16, cf Harnack, Dogmengesch., 2. 205). Among other points of
interest we may observe the anticipatory rejection of the later heresies of Macedonius (i. 48,
iii. 24), Nestorius (ii. 8 note 3, &c., and the frequent appHcation of OeoroKos to the B.M.V.
iii. 14, 29, &c.), and Eutyches (ii. 10 note 6, &c.), the emphatic vindication of worship as the
exclusive prerogative of Divinity (ii. 23, iii. 32, 'we invoke no creature ') and of the unique sinless
conception of Christ (iii. 33), lastly the cautious and reasonable discussion (iii. 42 sqq.) of our
Saviour's human knowledge.
Although apparently composed at different times (see above) the four ' Discourses ' form
a single work. The fourth alone ends with the usual doxology, thus announcing itself as the
conclusion of the four-fold treatise. At the same time, the relation of the fourth Discourse to
the others is by no means clear. It is largely occupied with a polemic against a heresy at the
opposite extreme from Arianism, Monarchianism in one or other of its forms. Newman, in
his introductory excursus, expresses the opinion that it consists of a series of fragmentary
notes against several heresies, which for some unknown reason came to be incorporated,
possibly by Athanasius himself or by his secretaries, in the great anti-Arian Manifesto.
Zahn Marcell. pp. 198 — 208 shews convincingly that the system of Marcellus, either in
itself or in its supposed logical consequences, is the main object of criticism all along.
If we trace throughout the Discourses the purpose of conciliating the ' Conservative ' and
Semi-Arian party, we can well understand that Athanasius may have appended to them
a section directed against Monarchianism, which, in the persons of Marcellus and Photinus
(whose names, however, are characteristically absent), must have been felt by him to be
a legitimate stumbling-block in their path toward peace. At any rate the fourth oration has
always been associated with the others as forming part of one work.
There is, however, some confusion in early citations, in MSS., and in early editions as to
the number of ' Orations ' against the Arians. The confusion is due to the frequent practice
of reckoning the Ep. ^g. as the first (or in one or two cases as the fourth ; the Basel .MS.
counts de Incar. c. Ar. as the fifth, and our fourth as the sixth). Montfaucon {Monitum
Migne xxvi. p. 10) ascribes this to the arrangement in many MSS. by which the Ep. ^g.
comes immediately before the ' Orations ' Being itself directed against the Arians it has come
to be labelled \6yos npooTos.
The title 'Orations' is consecrated by long use, and cannot be displaced, but it is
unfortunate as implying, to our ears, oratorical delivery, for which the Discourses were never
meant. The original Greek term (Xoyoy) is common to these Discourses with the c. Geutes, de
Incar7iaiione, &■•€., dr^c.
A full analysis of these Discourses is given by Bishop Kaye {Council of NiccBa,m 'Works,'
vol. V.) ; his strictures on Newman's notes are occasionally very just. The Discourses are
more concisely analysed by Ceillier (vol. v., pp. 218, sqq.) See also Dorner, Boctr. of
Person of Christ, Part I., Div. 3, i. 3. The headings of Newman, prefixed to the ' chapters,'
will supply the place of an analysis for readers of this volume.
The transladon which follows is that o^ Cardinal Newman, published in 1844 (the year
before his secession), in the Oxford ' Library of the Fathers.' The copious and elaborate
notes and discussions which accompany it have always been acknowledged to be a master-
piece of their illustrious author. The modern reader sits down to study Athanasius, and rises
from his task filled with Newman. Like all the work of Newman included in this volume,
translation and notes alike have been touched by the present editor with a reverent and
a sparing hand. The translation, which shews great care and fidelity, coupled with remark-
able ingenuity and close study of characteristic phrases and idioms, has been, with two
main exceptions, but little altered. These exceptions are (1) the substitution throughout of
' essence ' for ' substance,' (2) an attempt to remedy the most unfortunate, though not un-
considered, confusion of-yewj^rdr and yevrfros under the single rendering 'generate.' A good
rendering for the latter word and its cognates is indeed not easy to find (see above, p. 149) ;
but it was felt impossible, even in deference to so great a name, after the note in Lightfoot's
Ignatius, to leave the matter as it stood.
With regard to the notes, the historical matter and the abundant cross-references have
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS. 305
been thoroughly overhauled and in some cases modified without indication of the change.
Moreover, some theological notes of minor importance have been expunged to economise
space, while, for the same reason, mere references have in many cases been reluctantly sub-
stituted for the extensive patristic quotations. The notes to Orat. iv., which are less important
theologically, have been very much curtailed. With these exceptions, all doctrinal notes
proper have been left exactly as they first appeared, even where 'they maintain views which
appear untenable : any additions or explanations by the present editor are enclosed in square
brackets, which also in a very few cases denote additional or corrected references made under
Dr. Pusey's authority in the reprint of 1877.
It is unnecessary to apologise "to the reader for the hesitation which has been felt in
touching, even to this slight extent, the work of John Henry Newman. The only apology
which the editor of this volume cares to offer is for having done the little that seemed
absolutely needed.
■ It maybe added that the Cardinal published in 1881 (4th ed., 1888) a * free translation '
of the first three Discourses, based upon the Oxford translation, but of a totally different kind,
amounting to a somewhat highly condensed paraphrase of the original in the luminous English
of the Cardinal himself, rather than bound, as the older translation is, to the style of
Athanasius. The new rendering includes the de Decretis and the de Synodts ; almost all the
notes are in a second volume.
The most convenient edition of the Greek text is that of Dr. Bright (Oxford, 1872), with
an Introduction on the Life and Writings of Athanasius (rewritten for D. C. B., vol. i.,
pp. 119 sqq.).
Table of Contents of the Four Discourses.
The following Table of Contents of Orat. i. — iii. (the contents of Orat. iv. will be
tabulated at the end of Exc. C.) must be supplemented by the fuller headings prefixed to
Newman's ' chapters.'
Orat. i. I — 4. Introductory.
i, 5—7. a. The Arian doctrine as represented in the * Thalia.'
i. 8 — 10. b. Significance of the Controversy.
General Subject of the Discourses : The Sonship OF Christ.
i. II — 13. The Divine Sonship : (i) Eternal.
i 14 — 16. (2) Though real, not like earthly Sonshlpi
i. 17 — 21. (3) The only true Sonship.
L 22 — 29. Objections to the above discossed.
i. 30 — 34. (4) On the term ayivriros.
i» 3S> Z^- (S) Oil th^ unchangeableness of the Son.
Orat. i. 37 — iii. $8. (6) Discussion of controverted texts.
L 37 — 64. a. Texts bearing on the exaltation of the Son (viz. Phil. iL 9 ; Ps. xlv. 7, 8 ; Heb. L 4)<
{Excursus B. On the Arian formula Trplv '^ivvrfiy\vai ovk ^v.)
ii. I — 82. $. Texts bearing on the ' creation ' of the Son (viz. Heb. iii. 2 ; Acts ii. 36 ; Prov. inii. 22 j
the latter occupying §§ 18 — 82).
iii. I — 2$. 7. Texts from the Fourth Gospel on the relation of the Son to the Father.
iiL 26 — 58. 8. Texts bearing more directly on the Incarnation (Matt, xxviii. i8; Joh. iii. 35; Markxiii. 3^
Luke ii. 52, human knowledge, &c, of Christ, §§ 42 — 53 ; Matt xxvi. 39^ &C>).
iiL 58—67. (7) The Divine Sonship in relation to the EKviae WHL
VOL. !▼. ' X
DISCOURSE I.
CHAPTER I.
Introduction.
Reason for writing ; certain persons indifferent about
Arianism; Arians not Christians, because sectaries
always take the name of their founder.
I . Of all other heresies which have departed
from the truth it is acknowledged that they
have but devised' a madness, and their irre-
ligiousness has long since become notorious
to all men. For that^ their authors went out
from us, it plainly follows, as the blessed
John has written, that they never thought
nor now think with us. Wherefore, as saith
the Saviour, in that they gather not with us,
they scatter with the devil, and keep an eye
on those who slumber, that, by this second
sowing of their own mortal poison, they may
have companions in death. But, whereas one
heresy, and that the last, which has now risen
as harbingers of Antichrist, the Arian, as it
is called, considering that other heresies, her
elder sisters, have been openly proscribed,
in her craft and cunning, affects to array
herself in Scripture language*, like her father
» tirivo^o-ao-ai. This is almost a technical word, and has oc-
curred again and again already, as descriptive of heretical teaching
in opposition to the received traditionary doctrine. It is also
found passim in other writers. Thus Socrates, speaking of the
decree of the Council of Alexandria, 362, against ApoUinaris ;
'for not originating, eirii/0)j<ra>'Tes, any novel devotion, did they
introduce it into the Church, but what from the beginning the
Ecclesiastical Tradition declared.' Hist. iii. 7. The sense of
the word kmvoi.a. which will come into consideration below, is
akin to this, being the view taken by the mind of an object inde-
pendent of (whether or not correspondent to) the object itself. [But
see Bigg. B. L. p. 168, sq.^
* TO ydp e jeA^ei)/ .... ^ijAoi' a.v eirj, i.e. T^ and SO infr. | 43.
TO 6e (cai irpotrKWiKT^ax .... iT\Kov a.v e'irj.
3 de Syn. 5.
4 Vid. infr. § 4 fin. That heresies before the Arian appealed
to Scripture we learn from Tertullian, de Pmscr. 42, who warns
Catholics against indulging themselves in their own view of iso-
lated texts against the voice of the Catholic Church, vid. also
Vincentius, who specifies obiter Sabellius and Novatian. Com-
monit. 2. Still Arianism was contrasted with other heresies on
this point, as in these two respects ; (i.) they appealed to a
secret tradition, unknown, even to most of the Apostles, as the
Gnostics, Iren. Heer. iii. r or they professed a gift of prophecy
introducing fresh revelatio>is, .is Montanists, de Syn. 4, and
Manichees, Aug. contr. Faust, xxxii. 6. (2.) The Arians availed
themselves of certain texts as objections, argued keenly and plau-
sibly from them, and would not be driven from them. Orat. ii.
§ i8. c. Epiph. Har. 69. 15. Or rather they took some words of
Scripture, and maae their own deductions from them ; viz. ' Son,'
'made,' ' exalted, '_ &c. 'Making their private irreligiousness as
if a rule, they misinterpret all the divine oracles by it.' Orat. i.
the devil, and Is forcing her way back into
the Church's paradise, — that with the pre-
tence of Christianity, her smooth sophistry
(for reason she has none) may deceive men
into wrong thoughts of Christ, — nay, since
she has already seduced certain of the foolish,
not only to corrupt their ears, but even to
take and eat with Eve, till in their ignorance
which ensues they think bitter sweet, and
admire this loathsome heresy, on this account
I have thought it necessary, at your request,
to unrip ' the folds of its breast-plates,' and to
shew the ill savour of its folly. So while those
who are far from it may continue to shun it,
those whom it has deceived may repent ;
and, opening the eyes of their heart, may
understand that darkness is not light, nor
falsehood truth, nor Arianism good ; nay,
that those^ who call these men Christians
are in great and grievous error, as neither
having studied Scripture, nor understanding
Christianity at all, and the faith which it con-
tains.
2. For what have they discovered in this
heresy like to the religious Faith, that they
vainly talk as if its supporters said no evil?
This in truth is to call even Caiaphas^ a
Christian, and to reckon the traitor Judas still
§ 52. vid. also Epiph. Har. 76. s fin. Hence we hear so much of
their flpuAArjral ^lavat, Ae'|cis, Itttj, prjrd, sayings in general circu-
lation, which were commonly founded on some particular text,
e.g. infr., § 22, 'amply providing themselves with words of craft,
they used to go about,' &c. Also a.vio ical Ka.7{a TrepL<f>epovTa, de
Deer. § 13. Tui piJTOi TG6pvWi,Ka<ri ra Tra.vTa.\ov. Orat. 2. § 18.
TO TroKvdpvh.X-q7Qv (r6<piafj.a, Basil, contr. K^inom. ii. 14. ttji'
jToAviSpiiAATjTOi' SiaAeKTiKTJi/, Nyssen. contr. Eun. iii. p. 125. riji'
6pvKKov[i.iv-i]v onropporiv, Cyril. Dial. iv. p. 505. ttjc 7roAv6pvAAi)«
Toi' <l>iovr)i', Socr. ii. 43. 5 Job xli 13 (v. 4. LXX).
* These Orations and Discourses seem written to shew the vital
importance of the point in controversy, and the unchristian charac-
ter of the heresy, without reference to the word biJ.oov(n,of. He
has [elsewhere] insisted that the enforcement of the symbol was
but the rejection of the heresy, and accordingly he is here content
to bring out the Catholic sense, as feeling that, if persons imder-
stood and embraced it, they would not scruple at the word. He
seems to allude to what may be called the liberal or indifferent
feeling as swaying the person for whom he writes, also infr. § 7 fin.
§ 9. § 10 init. § 15 fin. § 17. § 21. § 23. He mentions in A/el/in.
i. 6. one Rhetorius, who was an Egyptian, whose opinion, he says,
it was 'fearful to mention.' S.Augustine tells us that this man
taught that 'all heresies were in the right path, and spoke truth,'
'which,' be adds, 'is so absurd as to seem to me incredible.' ffmn
72. vid. also Philastr. Hcer. 91.
1 de Deer. §§ 2, 24, 27.
DISCOURSE I
?07
among the Apostles, and to say that they who
asked Barabbas instead of the Saviour did no
evil, and to reconmmend Hymenseus and Alex-
ander as right-minded men, and as if the
Apostle slandered them. But neither can
a Christian bear to hear this, nor can he
consider the man who dared to say it sane
in his understanding. For with them for
Christ is Arius, as with the Manichees Mani-
chaeus ; and for Moses and the other saints
they have made the discovery of one Sotades^,
a man whom even Gentiles laugh at, and
of the daughter of Herodias. For of the one
has Arius imitated the dissolute and effemi-
nate tone, in writing Thalias on his model ;
and the other he has rivalled in her dance,
reeling and frolicking in his blasphemies
against the Saviour; till the victims of his
heresy lose their wits and go foolish, and
change the Name of the Lord of glory into
the likeness of the 'image of corruptible
manV and for Christians come to be called
Arians, bearing this badge of their irreligion.
For let them not excuse themselves ; nor
retort their disgrace on those who are not
as they, caUing Christians after the names
of their teachers'", that they themselves may
appear to have that Name in the same way.
Nor let them make a jest of it, when they feel
shame at their disgraceful appellation ; rather,
if they be ashamed, let them hide their faces,
or let them recoil from their own irreligion.
For never at any time did Christian people
take their title from the Bishops among them,
but from the Lord, on whom we rest our
faith. Thus, though the blessed Apostles have
become our teachers, and have ministered the
Saviour's Gospel, yet not from them have we
our title, but from Christ we are and are
named Christians. But for those who derive
the faith which they profess from others, good
reason is it they should bear their name, whose
property they have become'.
8 de Syn. § i. 9 Vid. Hil. de Trin.vw. 28 ; Rom. 1. 25.
K> He seems to allude to Catholics being called Athanasians ;
vid. however next \. Two distinctions are drawn between such
a title as applied to Catholics, and again to heretics, when they
are taken by Catholics as a note against them. S. Augustine says,
' Arians call Catholics Athanasians or Homousians, not other
heretics too. But ye not only by Catholics but also by heretics,
those who agree with you and those who disagree, are called
Pelagians ; as even hy heresies are Arians called Arians. But ye,
and ye only, call us Traducianists, as Arians call us Homousians,
as Donatists Macarians, as Manichees Pharisees, and as the other
heretics use various titles.' Op. ivip. i. 75. It may be added that
the heretical name adheres, the Catholic dies away. S. Chrysos-
tom draws a second distinction, ' Are we divided from the Chuich ?
have we heresiarchs ? are we called from man ? is there any leader
to us, as_ to one there is Marcion, to another Manichaeus, to an-
other Arius, to another some other author of heresy? for if we too
have the name of any, still it is iiot those who began, the heresy,
Init our superiors and governors of the Church. We have not
"teachers upon earth,'" &c. in Act. Ap. Horn. 33 fin.
' Vid. foregoing note. Also, ' Let us become His disciples,
and learn to live according to Christianity ; for whoso is called by
other name besides this, is not of God.' Ignat ad Magn. lo.
Hegesippus speaks of ' Menandrians, and Marcionites, and Car-
pocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians,'
3. Yes surely; while all of us are and
are called Christians after Christ, Marcion
broached a heresy a long time since and was
cast out; and those who continued with him
who ejected him remained Christians; but
those who followed Marcion were called
Christians no more, but henceforth Marcion-
ites, Thus Valentinus also, and Basilides, and
Manichce'js, and Simon Magus, have impart-
ed their own name to their followers; and some
are accosted as Valentinians, or as Basilidian.s,
or as Manichees, or as Simonians; and others,
Cataphrygians from Phrygia, and from Nova-
tus Novatians. So too Meletius, when ejected
by Peter the Bishop and Martyr, called his
party no longer Christians, but Meletians^,
and so in consequence when Alexander of
blessed memory had cast out Arius, those
who remained with Alexander, remained Chris-
tians ; but those who went out with Arius,
left the Saviour's Name to us who were with
Alexander, and as to them they were hence-
forward denominated Arians. Behold then,
after Alexander's death too, those who com-
municate with his successor Athanasius, and
those with whom the said Athanasius com-
municates, are instances of the same rule ;
none of them bear his name, nor is he named
from them, but all in like manner, and as is
usual, are called Christians. For though we
have a succession of teachers and become
their disciples, yet, because we are taught by
them the things of Christ, we both are, and
are called. Christians all the same. But those
who follow the heretics, though they have
innumerable successors in their heresy, yet
anyhow bear the name of him who devised
it. Thus, though Arius be dead, and many of
his party have succeeded him, yet those who
think with him, as being known from Arius,
are called Arians. And, what is a remarkable
who ' each in his own way and that a different one brought in his
own doctrine.' Euseb. Hist. iv. 22. ' There are, and there have
been, my friends, many who have taught atheistic and b'asphemous
words and deeds, coming in the name 01 Jesus ; and they are
called by us from the appellation of the men, whence >;ach doctrine
and opinion began. . . . Some are called Marcians, others Valen-
tinians, others Basilidians, others Saturnilians,' &c. Justin.
Tryph. 35. Iren. Hcer. i. 23. ' When men are called Phry-
gians, or Novatians, or Valentinians, or Marcionites, or An-
thropians, or by any other name, they cease to be Christians ;
for they have lost Christ's Name, and clothe themselves in
human and foreign titles.' Lact. Inst. iv. 30. ' A. How are
you a Christian, to whom it is not even granted to bear the
name of Christian? for you are not called Cliristian but Mar-
cionite. M. And you are called of the Catholic Churcii ;
therefore ye are not Christians either. A. Did we profess
man's name, you would have spoken to the point ; but if we
are called from being all over the world, what is there bad In
this?' Adamant. Dial. § i, p. 809. Epiph. Har. 42. p. 366,
ibid. 70. 15. vid. also Har. 75. 6 fin. Cyril Cat. xviii. 26,
' Christian is my name, Catholic my surname.' Pacian. Ep. i.
'If you ever hear those who are called Christians, named, not
from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some one else, say Mar-
cionites, Valentinians, Mountaineers. Campestiians, know that it
is not Christ's Church, but the synagogue of Antichrist.' Jeroni.
adv. Lucif. fin.
a Vid. de Syn. la. [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 2.]
X 9.
308
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
evidence of this, those of the Greeks who even
at this time come into the Church, on giving
up the superstition of idols, take the name,
not of their catechists, but of the Saviour, and
begin to be called Christians instead of Greeks ;
while those of them who go off to the heretics,
and again all who from the Church change to
this heresy, abandon Christ's name, and hence-
forth are called Arians, as no longer holding
, Christ's faith, but having inherited Arius's
madness.
4. How then can they be Christians, who
for Christians are Ario-maniacs 3 ? or how are
they of the Catholic Church, who have shaken
off the Apostolical faith, and become authors
of fresh evils ? who, after abandoning the
oracles of divine Scripture, call Arius's Thalise
a new wisdom? and with reason too, for
they are announcing a new heresy. And
hence a man may marvel, that, whereas many
have written many treatises and abundant
homilies upon the Old Testament and the
New, yet in none of them is a Thalia found ;
nay nor among the more respectable of the
Gentiles, but among those only who sing such
strains over their cups, amid cheers and jokes,
when men are merry, that the rest may laugh ;
till this marvellous Arius, taking no grave
pattern, and ignorant even of what is respect-
able, while he stole largely from other heresies,
would be original in the ludicrous, with none
but Sotades for his rival. For what beseemed
him more, when he would dance forth against
the Saviour, than to throw his wretched words
of irreligion into dissolute and loose metres?
that, while 'a man,' as Wisdom says, *is
known from the utterance of his word^,' so
from those numbers should be seen the writer's
effeminate soul and corruption of thoughts. In
truth, that crafty one did not escape detection ;
but, for all his many writhings to and fro, like
the serpent, he did but fall into the error of the
Pharisees. They, that they might transgress
the Law, pretended to be anxious for the words
of the Law, and that they might deny the
expected and then present Lord, were hypo-
critical with God's name, and were convicted
3 deSyn. 13, note 4. Manes also was called mad ; ' Thou must
hate all hereticSj but especially him who even in name is a maniac'
Cyril. Catech. vi. 20, vid. also ibid. 34 fio. — a play upon the name,
vid. de Syn. 26, ' Scotinus.'
* Vid. Ecclus. iv. 24.
5 It is very difficult to gain a clear idea of the character of
Arius. [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 2.] Epiphanius's account of Arius is
as follows : — ' From elation of mind the old man swerved from the
mark. He was in stature very tall, downcast in visage, with
manners like wily serpent, captivitating to every guileless heart
by that same crafty bearing. For ever habited in clolce and vest,
he was pleasant of address, ever persuading souls and flattering ;
wherefore what was his very first work but to withdraw from the
Church in one body as many as seven hundred women who pro-
fessed virginity?' Har. 69. 3, cf. ib. ? 9 for a strange description
of Arius attributed to Constantine, also printed in the collections
of councils : Hard. L 457.
of blaspheming when they said, 'Why dost Thou,
being a man, make Thyself God,' and sayest,
' I and the Father are one ^ ? ' And so too, this
counterfeit an^ Sotadean Arius, feigns to speak
of God, introducing Scripture language 7, but
is on all sides recognised as godless^ Arius,
denying the Son, and reckoning Him among
the creatures.
CHAPTER IL
Extracts from the Thalia of Arius.
Arius maintains that God became a Father, and the
Son was not always ; the Son out of nothing ; once
He was not ; He was not before his generation ; He
was created ; named Wisdom and Word after God's
attributes ; made that He might make us ; one out
of many powers of God ; alterable ; exalted on God's
foreknowledge of what He was to be ; not very God ;
but called so as others by participation; foreign in
essence from the Father; does not know or see the
Father ; does not know Himself.
5. Now the commencement of Arius's Thalia
and flippancy, effeminate in tune and nature,
runs thus : —
'According to faith of God's elect, God's prudent
ones,
Holy children, rightly dividing, God's Holy Spirit
receiving,
Have I learned this from the partakers of wisdom,
Accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all
things.
Along their track, have I been walking, with like
opinions,
I the very famous, the much suffering for God's
glory ;
And taught of God, I have acquired wisdom and
knowledge.'
And the mockeries which he utters in it,
repulsive and most irreligious, are such as
these ^ : — ' God was not always a Father ; ' but
' once God was alone, and not yet a Father,
but afterwards He became a Father.* * The Son
was not always ; ' for, whereas all things were
made out of nothing, and all existing creatures
and works were made, so the Word of God
Himself was * made out of nothing,' and * once
He was not,' and * He was not before His
6 John X. 30. 7 § i,_note 4.
8 And so godless or atheist Aetius, de Syn, 6, note 3, c£ note
on de Deer, i, for an explanation of the word. In like manner
Athan. says, ad Serap. iii. 2, that if a man says 'that the Son is
a creature, who is Word and Wisdom, and the Expression, and
the Radiance, whom whoso seeth seeth the Father,' he falls under
the text, 'Whoso denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.'
' Such a one,' he continues, 'will in no long time say, as the foot.
There is no God' In like manner he speaks of those who think
the Son to be the Spirit as ' without (efio) the Holy Trinity, and
atheists ' {Serap. iv. 6), because they really do not believe in
the God that is, and there is none other but He. Cf. also Serap. i.
30. Eustathius speaks of the Arians as dv^pwirov? adeovi, who were
attempting Kpan5<rai tov 6eiov. ap. ^Theod. Hist. i. 7. p. 760.
Naz. speaks of the heathen TroAvfieo? adeia. Orat. 25. 15. and he
calls faith and regeneration 'a denial of atheism, aBAa<;, and
a confession of godhead, 6(.6rtfta%^ Orat. 23. 12. He calls Lucius,
the Alexandrian Anti-pope, on account of his cruelties, 'this
second Arius, the more copious river of the atheistic spring, t^s
oJBiov mry^s.' Orat. 25. 11. Palladius, the Imperial officer, is-
a.vi\p aOeoi. ibid. 12-
I de Syn. S i5- [where the metre of the Thalia is discussed
in a note.]
DISCOURSE I.
309
origination,' but He as others ' had an origin of
creation.' ' For God,' he says, • was alone, and
the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom.
Then, wishing to form us, thereupon He made
a certain one, and named Him Word and
Wisdom and Son, that He might form us by
means of Him.' Accordingly, he says that
there are two wisdoms, first, the attribute co-
existent with God, and next, that in this
wisdom the Son was originated, and was only
named Wisdom and Word as partaking of it.
* For Wisdom,' saith he, ' by the will of the wise
God, had its existence in Wisdom.' In like
manner, he says, that there is another Word in
God besides the Son, and that the Son again,
as partaking of it, is named Word and Son
according to grace. And this too is an idea
proper to their heresy, as shewn in other works
of theirs, that there are many powers ; one of
which is God's own by nature and eternal ; but
that Christ, on the other hand, is not the true
power of God ; but, as others, one of the so-
called powers, one of which, namely, the locust
and the caterpillar ^, is called in Scripture, not
merely the power, but the ' great power.' The
others are many and are like the Son, and of
them David speaks in the Psalms, when he
says, ' The Lord of hosts ' or ' powers 3.' And
by nature, as all others, so the Word Himself is
alterable, and remains good by His own free
will, while He chooseth ; when, however. He
wills. He can alter as we can, as being of an
alterable nature. For 'therefore,' saith he, ' as
foreknowing that He would be good, did God
by anticipation bestow on Him this glory,
which afterwards, as man, He attained from
virtue. Thus in consequence of His works
fore-known \ did God bring it to pass that He,
being such, should come to be.'
6. Moreover he has dared to say, that ' the
Word is not the very God ; * ' though He is
called God, yet He is not very God,' but ' by
participation of grace, He, as others, is God
only in name.' And, whereas all beings are
foreign and different from God in essence, so
too is ' the Word alien and unlike in all things
to the Father's essence and propriety,' but
belongs to things originated and created, and is
one of these. Afterwards, as though he had
succeeded to the devil's recklessness, he has
stated in his Thalia, that ' even to the Son the
Father is invisible,' and ' the Word cannot per-
fectly and exactly either see or know His own
Father ; ' but even what He knows and what
He sees. He knows and sees ' in proportion to
His own measure,' as we also know according
to our own power. For the Son, too, he says,
• tU Syn. § 18 ; Joel ii. as. 3 Ps. xxiv. lo.
4 de Syn. 26, note 7, de Deer. 6, note 8.
not .only knows not the Father exactly, for He
fails in comprehension s, but ' He knows not
even His own essence ;' — and that ' the es-
sences of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Ghost, are separate in nature, and estranged,
and disconnected, and alien ^, and without par-
ticipation of each other?;' and, in his own
words, ' utterly unlike from each other in es-
sence and glory, unto infinity.' Thus as to
* likeness of glory and essence,' he says that
the Word is entirely diverse from both the
Father and the Holy Ghost. With such words
hath the irreligious spoken ; maintaining that
the Son is distinct by Himself, and in no
respect partaker of the Father. These are
portions of Arius's fables as they occur in that
jocose composition.
7. Who is there that hears all this, nay, the
tune of the Thalia, but must hate, and justly
hate, this Arius jesting on such matters as on
a stage ^ ? who but must regard him, when he
pretends to name God and speak of God, but
as the serpent counselling the woman ? who, on
reading what follows in his work, but must dis-
cern in his irreligious doctrine that error, into
which by his sophistries the serpent in the
sequel seduced the woman ? who at such blas-
phemies is not transported ? ' The heaven,' as
the Prophet says, 'was astonished, and the
earth shuddered 9 ' at the transgression of the
Law. But the sun, with greater horror, im-
patient of the bodily contumelies, which the
common Lord of all voluntarily endured for
us, turned away, and recalling his rays made
that day sunless. And shall not all human
kind at Arius's blasphemies be struck speech-
less, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, to
escape hearing them or seeing their author?
Rather, will not the Lord Himself have reason
to denounce men so irreligious, nay, so un-
thankful, in the words which He has already
uttered by the prophet Hosea, 'Woe unto them,
for they have fled from Me ; destruction upon
S Vid. de Syn. 15, note 6. KaraXriJfts was originally a Stoic
word, and even when considered perfect, was, properly speaking,
attributable only to an imperfect being. For it is used in contrast
to the Platonic doctrine of tSeat, to express the hold of things
obtained by the mind through the senses ; it being a Stoical
maxim, nihil esse in intellectu quod non fuerit in sensu. In
this sense it is also used by the Fathers, to mean real and certain
icnowledge after inquiry, though it is also ascribed to Almighty
God. As to the position of Arius, since we are told in Scripture
that none ' knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man
which is in him,' if icaraArji^ts be an e.xact and complete knowledge
of the object of contemplation, to deny that the Son comprehended
the Father, was to deny that He was in the Father, i.e. the doctrine
of the 7repix<op)]<ns, de Syn. 15, ai/eiri/xi/cToi, or to maintain that He
was a distinct, and therefore a created, being. On the o her hand
Scripture asserts that, as the Holy Spirit which is in God, 'searcheth
all things, yea, the deep things of God,' .so the Son, as being
' in the bosom of the Father,' alone ' hath declared Him.' vid.
Clement. StroTn. v. 12. And ihus Aihan. speaking of Mark
xiii. 32, 'If the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son,
and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the
Son too, being in the Father, and knowing the things in the
Father, Himself also knows the day and the hour." Oral. iii. 44.
6 de Deer. 25, note 2. 7 de Syn. 15.
8 Ep. Encycl. 6 ; Epiph. Heer. 73. z. 9 Jer. iL 1%,
3IO
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS
them, for they have transgressed against Me ;
though I have redeemed them, yet they have
spoken lies against Me'°' And soon after,
' They imagine mischief against Me; they turn
away to nothing ^^' For to turn away from the
Word of God, which is, and to fashion to them-
selves one that is not, is to fall to what is
nothing. For this was why the Ecumenical ^
Council, when Arius thus spoke, cast him from
the Church, and anathematized him, as im-
patient of such irreligion. And ever since has
Arius's error been reckoned for a heresy more
than ordinary, being known as Christ's foe, and
harbinger ^ of Antichrist Though then so
great a condemnation be itself of special weight
to make men flee from that irreligious heresy 3,
as I said above, yet since certain persons called
Christian, either in ignorance or pretence,
think it, as I then said, little different from the
Truth, and call its professors Christians ; pro-
ceed we to put some questions to them, accord-
ing to our powers, thereby to expose the un-
scrupulousness of the heresy. Perhaps, when
thus caught, they will be silenced, and flee
from it, as from the sight of a serpent.
CHAPTER III.
The Importance of the Subject.
The Arians affect Scripture language, but their doctrine
new, as well as unscriptural. Statement of the Ca-
tholic doctrine, that the Son is proper to the Father's
substance, and eternal. Restatement of Arianism in
contrast, that He is a creature with a beginning : the
controversy comes to this issue, whether one whom
we are to believe in as God, can be so in name only,
and is merely a creature. What pretence then for
being indifferent in the controversy? The Arians
rely on state patronage, and dare not avow their
tenets.
8. If then the use of certain phrases of
divine Scripture changes, in their opinion,
the blasphemy of the Thalia into reverent
language, of course they ought also to deny
Christ with the present Jews, when they
see how they study the Law and the Pro-
phets; perhaps too they will deny the Law^
and the Prophets like Manichees^ because
the latter read some portions of the Gospels.
If such bewilderment and empty speaking
be from ignorance. Scripture will teach them,
that the devil, the author of heresies, be-
cause of the ill savour which attaches to
»o Hos. vii. 13. II lb. 15. Ixx.
> de Deer. 27, note i. 2 lb. 3, note i, § 1, note 3.
_ 3 And so Vigilius of the heresies about the Incarnation, Etiamsi
in errons eorum destructionem nulli conderentur libri, hoc ipsum
solum, quod hffiretici sunt pronunciati, orthodoxorum secuiitati
sufficeret. contr. Eutych. i. p. 494. i de Syn. 33.
2 Faustus, in August, cotitr. Faust, ii. i. admits the Gospels
(vjd. Beausobre Munich, t. i. p. 291, &c.), but denies that they
■were written by the reputed authors, ibid, xxxii. 2. but nescio
quibus Semi-judaeis. ibid, xxxiii. 3. Accordingly they thought
themselves at liberty to reject or correct parts of them. They
rejected many iif the facts, e.g. our Lord's nativity, circumcision
baptism, temptation, &c. ibid, xxxii. 6. '
evil, borrows Scripture language, as a cloak
wherewith to sow the ground with his own
poison also, and to seduce the simple. Thus
he deceived Eve ; thus he framed former
heresies ; thus he persuaded Arius at this
time to make a show of speaking against those
former ones, that he might introduce his own
without observation. And yet, after all, the
man of craft did not escape. For being
irreligious towards the Word of God, he lost
his all at once 2*, and betrayed to all men his
ignorance of other heresies too 3 ; and having
not a particle of truth in his beHef, does but
pretend to it. For how can he speak truth
concerning the Father, who denies the Son,
that reveals concerning Him ? or how can he
be orthodox concerning the Spirit, while he
speaks profanely of the Word that supplies the
Spirit? and who will trust him concerning the
Resurrection, denying, as he does, Christ for us
the first-begotten from the dead ? and how
shall he not err in respect to His incarnate
presence, who is simply ignorant of the Son's
genuine and true generation from the Father ?
For thus, the former Jews also, denying the
Word, and saying, 'We have no king but
C£esarV were forthwith stripped of all they
had, and forfeited the Hght of the Lamp, the
odour of ointment, knowledge of prophecy, and
the Truth itself; till now they understand
nothing, but are walking as in darkness. For
who was ever yet a hearer of such a doctrines?
or whence or from whom did the abettors and
hirelings ^ of the heresy gain it ? who thus
expounded to them when they were at school??
who told them, ' Abandon the worship of the
creation, and then draw near and worship a
creature and a work^ ?' But if they themselves
own that they have heard it now for the first
time, how can they deny that this heresy is
foreign, and not from our fathers 9 ? But wha
is not from our fathers, but has come to light
in this day, how can it be but that of which the
blessed Paul '° has foretold, that ' in the latter
times some shall depart from the sound faith.
»* de Deer, i, note 6. _
3 [A note on the intimate mutual connexion of all heresies
is omitted here.]
4 Job. xix. 15. S de Deer. 7, note 2.
6 6u)poSd/coi, and so KtpSoi ti^s <J)iXoxp^»'a'rta?, infr. §53. He
mentions Trpoo-racrias <f>i\<jiv, § 10. And so S. Hilary speaks of the
exemptions from taxes which Constantius granted tlie Clergy as
a bribe to Arianize; contr. Const. 10. And again, of resist-
ing Constantius as hostem blandientem, qui non dorsa ca;dit, sed
ventrem palpat, non proscribit ad vitam, sed ditat in mortem,
non caput gladio desecat, sed animum auro occidit. ibid. $. vid.
Coustant. in loc. Liberius says the same, Theod H. E. ii. 13.
And S. Gregory Naz. speaks of ^lAoxpvo-ous ft-aXKov 17 (^lAoxpicr-
Tou!. Orat. 21. 21. On the other hand, Ep. yEg. 22, Athan.
contrasts the Arians with the Meletians, as not influenced by
secular views. [Prolegg. ch. ii. } 3 (2) c. (2).]
7 de Syn. § 3 and 9.
8 Vid. de Deer. i. note. This consideration, as might be ex*
pected, is insisted on by the Fathers, vid. Cyril. Dial. iv.
p. 511, &c. v. p. 566. Greg. Naz. 40, 42; Hil. Trin. viii. aS}
Ambios. de fid. i. n. 69 and 104.
9 lb. 4, note 8. "> i Tim. iv. i, 2 ; Tit. L 14.
DISCOURSE I.
311
giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of
devils, in the hypocrisy of liars ; cauterized in
their own conscience, and turning from the
truth"?'
9. For, behold, we take divine Scripture,
and thence discourse with freedom of the reli-
gious Faith, and set it up as a light upon its
candlestick, saying : — Very Son of the Father,
natural and genuine, proper to His essence,
Wisdom Only-begotten, and Very and Only
Word of God is He ; not a creature or work,
but an offspring proper to the Father's essence.
Wherefore He is very God, existing one'^ in
essence with the very Father; while other
beings, to whom He said, ' I said ye are Gods'','
had this grace from the Father, only by partici-
pation 2 of the Word, through the Spirit. For
He is the expression of the Father's Person,
and Light from Light, and Power, and very
Image of the Father's essence. For this too
the Lord has said, 'He that hath seen Me, hath
seen the Fathers.' And He ever was and is,
and never was not. For the Father being ever-
lasting. His Word and His Wisdom must be
everlasting*. On the other hand, what have
these persons to shew us from the infamous
Thalia? Or, first of all, let them read it
themselves, and copy the tone of the writer ;
at least the mockery which they will en-
counter from others may instruct them how
low they have fallen ; and then let them
proceed to explain themselves. For what
can they say from it, but that ' God was not
always a Father, but became so afterwards ;
the Son was not always, for He was not
before His generation; He is not from the
Father, but He, as others, has come into sub-
sistence out of nothing ; He is not proper to
the Father's essence, for He is a creature and
work?' And ' Christ is not very God, but He,
as others, was made God by participation ; the
Son has not exact knowledge of the Father,
nor does the Word see the Father perfectly ;
and neither exactly understands nor knows the
Father. He is not the very and only V/ord of
the Father, but is in name only called Word
" This passage is commonly taken by the Fathers to refer to
the Oriental sects of the early centuries, who fulfilled one or other
of those conditions which it specifies. It is quoted against the
Marcionists by Clement. Strom, iii. 6. Of the Carpocratians
apparently, Iren. Hcer. i. 25 ; Epiph. Har. 27. 5. Of the Valen-
tinians, Epiph. Hcer. 31. 34. Of the Montanists and others, ibid.
48. 8. Of the Satumilians (according to Huet.) Origen in Matt.
XX. 16. Of apostolic heresies, Cyril. Ca^. iv. 27. 0( iVlarcionites,
Valentinians, and Manichees, Chrysost. de Virg. 5. OfGnostics
and Manichees, Theod. Hisr. ii prasf. Of Encratites, ibid. v. fin.
Of Eutyches, Ep. Anon. 190 (apud Garner. Diss. v. Theod p. goi .
Pseudo-Justin seems to consider it fulfilled in the Catholics of the
fifth century, as being Anti-Pelagians. Qiufst. 22. vid. Bened.
note in ioc. Besides Athanasius, no early author occurs to the
writer of this, by whom it is referred to the Arians, cf. Depos. Ar.
supr. p. 71, note 29.
■2 [This is the only occurrence of the word o^oovtriof in these
three Discourses.] ' Ps. Ixxxii. 6.
2 de Deer. § 14 fin. ; de Syn. 1 51. 3 John xiv. gu
4 dt Deer, is, note 6,
and Wisdom, and is called by grace Son and
Power. He is not unalterable, as the Father
is, but alterable in nature, as the creatures, and
He comes short of apprehending the perfect
knowledge of the Father.' Wonderful this
heresy, not plausible even, but making specu
lations against Him that is, that He be not,
and everywhere putting forward blasphemy
for reverent language ! Were any one, after
inquiring into both sides, to be asked,
whether of the two he would follow in faith,
or whether of the two spoke fitly of God, —
or rather let them say themselves, these
abettors of irreligion, what, if a man be
asked concerning God (for ' the Word was
God '), it were fit to answer s. For from
this one question the whole case on both
sides may be determined, what is fitting to
say, — He was, or He was not; always, or before
His birth ; eternal, or from this and from then ;
true, or by adoption, and from participation and
in idea^; to call Him one of things originated,
or to unite Him to the Father; to consider
Him unlike the Father in essence, or like
and proper to Him ; a creature, or Him
through whom the creatures were originated ;
that He is the Father's Word, or that there is
another word beside Him, and that by this
other He was originated, and by another
wisdom ; and that He is only named Wisdom
and Word, and is become a partaker of this
wisdom, and second to it?
10. Which of the two theologies sets forth
our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Son of
the Father, this which you vomited forth, or
that which we have spoken and maintain from
the Scriptures ? If the Saviour be not God,
nor Word, nor Son, you shall have leave to
say what you will, and so shall the Gentiles,
and the present Jews. But if He be Word of
the Father and true Son, and God from God,
and ' over all blessed for ever 7,' is it not be-
coming to obliterate and blot out those other
phrases and that Arian Thalia, as but a pat-
tern of evil, a store of all irreligion, into
which, whoso falls, 'knoweth not that giants
perish with her, and reacheth the depths of
Hades ^?' This they know themselves, and
in their craft they conceal it, not having the
courage to speak out, but uttering something
else 9. For if they speak, a condemnation
will follow ; and if they be suspected, proofs
from Scripture will be cast ^° at them from
every side. Wherefore, in their craft, as
children of this world, after feeding their
5 That is, ' Let them tell us, is it right to predicate this or to
predicate that of God (of one who is God), for such is the Word,
viz. that He was from eternity or was created,' &c., &c.
6 (car' eTTtVotai', vid. Orat. ii. § 38.
7 Rom. ix. 5. 8 Prov. ix. 18. LXX. 9 de Deer. 6. note 5 ;
rfc Syn. 3a. "> <U Deer. 26, note 6.
312
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
so-called lamp from the wild olive, and fear-
ing lest it should soon be quenched (for it
is said, * the light of the wicked shall be put
out %') they hide it under the bushel ^ of their
hypocrisy, and make a different profession,
and boast of patronage of friends and authority
of Constantius, that what with their hypocrisy
and their professions, those who come to them
may be kept from seeing how foul their heresy
is. Is it not detestable even in this, that it
dares not speak out, but is kept hid by its own
friends, and fostered as serpents are ? for from
what sources have they got together these
words? or from whom have they received
what they venture to say 3 ? Not any one man
can they specify who has supplied it For
who is there in all mankind, Greek or Bar-
barian, who ventures to rank among creatures
One whom he confesses the while to be God,
and says, that He was not till He was made ?
or who is there, who to the God in whom he
has put faith, refuses to give credit, when He
says, * This is My beloved Son -»,' on the pre-
tence that He is not a Son, but a creature ?
rather, such madness would rouse an universal
indignation. Nor does Scripture afford them
any pretext ; for it has been often shewn, and
it shall be shewn now, that their doctrine is
alien to the divine oracles. Therefore, since
all that remains is to say that from the devil
came their mania (for of such opinions he
alone is sower s), proceed we to resist him ; —
for with him is our real conflict, and they are
but instruments ; — that, the Lord aiding us, and
the enemy, as he is wont, being overcome with
arguments, they may be put to shame, when
they see him without resource who sowed this
heresy in them, and may learn, though late,
that, as being Arians, they are not Christians.
CHAPTER IV.
That the Son is Eternal and Increate.
These attributes, being the points in dispute, are first
proved by direct texts of Scripture. Concerning the
' eternal power ' of God in Rom. i. 20, which is
shewn to mean the Son. Remarks on the Arian
formula, ' Once the Son was not,' its supporters not
daring to speak of ' a time when the Son was not.*
II. At his suggestion then ye have main-
tained and ye think, that 'there was once
when the Son was not ; ' this is the first cloke
of your views of doctrine which has to be
stripped off Say then what was once when
the Son was not, O slanderous and irreligious
men ^ ? If ye say the Father, your blasphemy
» Tob xyiii. 5. a Ef. ^g. 18. 3 § 8, note 5.
4 Matt. 111. 17. 5 de Deer. 2, note 6.
> Athan. observes that this formula of the Arians is a mere
evasion to escape using the word ' time.' vid. also Cyril. Thesaur.
IV. pp. 19, 20. Else let them explain,—' There was," wkai 'when
the Son was not'/' or what was before the Son? bince He Himself
was before all times and ages, which He created, de Deer. 18,
is but greater ; for it is impious to say that
He was * once,' or to signify Him by the
word ' once.' For He is ever, and is now,
and as the Son is, so is He, and is Himself
He that is, and Father of the Son. But if ye
say that the Son was once, when He Himself
was not, the answer is foolish and unmeaning.
For how could He both be and not be? In
this difficulty, you can but answer, that there
was a time when the Word was not ; for your
very adverb ' once ' naturally signifies this.
And your other, ' The Son was not before His
generation,' is equivalent to saying, ' There
was once when He was not,' for both the one
and the other signify that there is a time before
the Word. Whence then this your discovery ?
Why do ye, as ' the heathen, rage, and imagine
vain phrases against the Lord^ and against His
Christ ? ' for no holy Scripture has used such
language of the Saviour, but rather * always '
and ' eternal ' and ' coexistent always with the
Father.' For, ' In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God 3.' And in the Apocalypse he
thus speaks '< \ ' Who is and who was and who
is to come.* Now who can rob ' who is ' and
' who was ' of eternity ? This too in confuta-
tion of the Jews hath Paul written in his Epistle
to the Romans, * Of whom as concerning the
flesh is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for
ever 5;' while silencing the Greeks, he has
said, * The visible things of Him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even
His eternal Power and Godhead^;' and what
the Power of God is, he teaches us elsewhere
himself, ' Christ the Power of God and the
Wisdom of God 7.' Surely in these words he
does not designate the Father, as ye often
whisper one to another, affirming that the
Father is ' His eternal power.' This is not so;
for he says not, ' God Himself is the power,'
but ' His is the power.' Very plain is it to all
that 'His' is not 'He;' yet not something
alien but rather proper to Him. Study too
the context and ' turn to the Lord ; ' now ' the
Lord is that Spirit ^ ; ' and you will see that
it is the Son who is signified.
note 5. Thus, if ' when ' be a word of time, He it is who was
'when' He -was not, which is absurd. Did they mean, however,
that it was the Father who 'was ' before the Son ? This was true,
if 'before' was taken, not to imply time, but origination or begin-
ning. And in this sense the first verse of S. John's Gospel may
be interpreted ' In the Beginning,' or Origin, i.e. in the Father
' was the Word.' Thus Athan. himself understands that text, Orat.
iv. § I. vid. also Orat. iii. § 9; Nyssen. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 106;
Cyril. Thesaur. 32. p. 312. * Ps. ii. i. •
3 John i. I.
4 Rev. i. 4. T(x5e Ae'yei. [On A^yei, &c., in citations, see Lightf.
on Gal. iii. 16, Winer, Gram. § 58, 9 y, Grimm-Thayer, s.v. II,
I. e.] 5 Rom. ix. s- * IL>- '• 20.
7 I Cor. i. 24. Athan. has so interpreted this text supr. at
Deer, 15. It was either a received intcrp-etation, or had beea
adduced at Nicaea, for Asterius had some years before these
Discourses replied to it, vid. lie Syn. 18, and Orat. ii. § 37.
• % Cor. iii. 16, 17. S. Athanasius observes, Serap. i. 4 — 7,
DISCOURSE I.
313
12. For after making mention of the crea-
tion, he naturally speaks of the Framer's
Power as seen in it, which Power, I say, is
the Word of God, by whom all things have
been made. If indeed the creation is suffi-
cient of itself alone, without the Son, to make
God known, see that you fall not, from think-
ing that without the Son it has come to be.
But if through the Son it has come to be, and
'in Him all things consist 9,' it must follow
that he who contemplates the creation rightly,
is contemplating also the Word who framed it,
and through Him begins to apprehend the
Father ^°. And if, as the Saviour also says,
' No one knoweth the Father, save the Son,
and he to whom the Son shall reveal Him ",'
and if on Philip's asking, ' Shew us the Father,'
He said not, ' Behold the creation,' but, ' He
that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father ^"^^
reasonably doth Paul, — while accusing the
Greeks of contemplating the harmony and
order of the creation without reflecting on the
Framing Word within it (for the creatures
witness to their own Framer) so as through
the creation to apprehend the true God,
and abandon their worship of it, — reason-
ably hath he said, ' His Eternal Power and
Godhead '3,' thereby signifying the Son.* And
where the sacred writers say, *Who exists
before the ages,' and ' By whom He made
the ages ',' they thereby as clearly preach
the eternal and everlasting being of the Son,
even while they are designating God Him-
self. Thus, if Isaiah says, ' The Everlasting
God, the Creator of the ends of the earth " ; '
and Susanna said, ' O Everlasting God 3 ; ' and
that the Holy Ghost is never in Scripture called simply ' Spirit '
witliout the addition ' of God 'or 'of the Father ' or ' from Me ' or
of the article, or of 'Holy,' or ' Comforter,' or 'of truth,' or unless
He has been spoken of just before. Accordingly this text is under-
stood of the third Person in the Holy Trinity by Origen, contr.
Ceis. vi. 70; Basil de Sp. S. n.yz; Psendo-Athan. decomm. ess. 6.
On the other hand, the word -nviViia., ' Spirit, is used more or
less distinctly for our Lord's Divine Nature whether in itself or
as incarnate, in Rom. i. 4, i Cor. xv. 45, i Tim. iii. 16, Hebr. ix.
14, 1 Pet. iii. 18, John vi. 63, &c. [But cf. also Milligan
Resurr. 238 sq.'\ Indeed the early Fathers speak as if the \ Holy
Spirit,' wtiich came down upon S. Mary might be considered
the Word. E.g. Tertullian against the Valentinians, ' If the
Spirit of God did not descend into the womb "to partake in flesh
from the womb," why did He descend at all?" de Carn. Chr. 19.
vid. also ibid. 5 and 14. contr. Prax. 26, Just. Apol. i. 33. Iren.
Har. V. I. Cypr. Idol. Van. 6. Lactant. Instit. iv. 12. vid. also
Hilar. Trin. ii. 27 ; Athan. Ao-yos ev tu Trctu/xari €7rAaTTe to crwfjLa.
Serap, i. 31 fin. kv Tip Aoyw ^i* to TrveiJ^io. ibid. iii. 6. And more
distinctly even as late as S. Maximus, a.\nov a.v^\ trnropas avKka.-
fiova-a Tov Koyov, KCKvrjKe, t. 2. p. 309. The earliest ecclesiastical
authorities are S. Ignatius ad Hmyrn. init. and S. Hermas (even
though his date were a.d. 150), who also says plainly : Filius autem
SpintusSanctusest. .SVwi. V. S,2,cf ix. i. The same use of ' Spirit '
tor the Word or Godhead of the Word, is also found in Tatian.
adv. Grac. 7. Athenag. Leg. 10. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. Iren.
Hcer. iv. 36. 'TertuU. Apol- 23. Lact. hist. iv. 6, 8. Hilar. Trin. ix.
3, and 14. Eustath. apzid Theod. Eran. iii. p. 235. Athan. contr.
Apoll. i. 8. Apollinar. a/. Theod. Eran. i. p. 71, and theApollinarists
passim. Greg. Naz. Ep. loi. ad Cledon. p. 85. Ambros. Incarn. 63.
Severian. ap. Tlieod. Eran. ii. p. 167. Vid. Grot, ad Marc. ii. 8 ;
Bull, Def. F. iV. i. 2, g 5 ; Coustant. Prcef. in Hilar. 57, &c.
Montfaucon in Athan. Scrap, iv. 19. [see also Tertullian, de (Drat.
init.]
9 Col. i. 17. «> Vid. contr. Gent. 45—47. " Matt. xi. 97.
«a John xiv. 8, 9. '3 Rom. i. 20. i Heb. L 2.
3 Is. xl. 28. 3 Hist. Stts. 42.
Baruch wrote, ' I will cry unto the Everlasting
in my days,' and shortly after, ' My hope is m
the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy
is come unto me from the Holy One ^ ; ' yet
forasmuch as the Apostle, writing to the
Hebrews, says, ' Who being the radiance of
His glory and the Expression of His Person S;'
and David too in the eighty-ninth Psalm, ' And
the brightness of the Lord be upon us,' and, ' In
Thy Light shall we see Light ^,' who has so
little sense as to doubt of the eternity of the
Son 7 ? for when did man see light without the
brightness of its radiance, that he may say of
the Son, ' There was once, when He was not,'
or ' Before His generation He was not.' And
the words addressed to the Son in the hundred
and forty-fourth Psalm, ' Thy kingdom is a
kingdom of all ages ^,' forbid any one to ima-
gine any interval at all in which the Word did
not exist. For if every interval in the ages
is measured, and of all the ages the Word is
King and Maker, therefore, whereas no in-
terval at all exists prior to Him 9, it were mad-
ness to say, ' There was once when the Ever-
lasting was not,' and 'From nothing is the Son.*
And whereas the Lord Himself says, * I am
the Truth '°,' not ' I became the Truth ; ' but
always, ' I am, — I am the Shepherd, — ^I am the
Light,' — and again, ' Call ye Me not, Lord and
Master? and ye call Me well, for so I am,'
who, hearing such language from God, and
the Wisdom, and Word of the Father, speaking
of Himself, will any longer hesitate about the
truth, and not forthwith believe that in the
phrase * I am,' is signified that the Son is
eternal and without beginning ?
13. It is plain then from the above that the
Scriptures declare the Son's eternity ; it is
equally plain from what follows that the Arian
phrases 'He was not,' and 'before' and 'when,'
are in the same Scriptures predicated of crea-
tures. Moses, for instance, in his account of
the generation of our system, says, ' And
every plant of the field, before it was in the
earth, and every herb of the field before it
grew ; for the Lord God had not caused it
to rain upon the earth, and there was not
a man to till the grounds' And in Deuter-
onomy, ' When the Most High divided to the
nations ^' And the Lord said in His own
Person, ' If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice
4 Bar. iv. 20, 22. 5 Heb. i. 3. 6 Ps. xc. 17 ; xxxvi. 9.
7 de Deer. 12, 27. 8 Ps. cxlv. 13.
9 Vid. de Deer. 18, note 5. _ The subject is treated at length
in Greg. Nyss. contr. Eunom. i. t. 2. Append, p. 93 — loi. vid. also
Ambros. de Fid. i. 8 — 11. As time measures the material creation,
' ages' were considered to measure the immaterial, as the duration
of Angels. This had been a philosophical distinction, Timseus
says ^iK'JiV ktTTL xpovo^ tu> ayeyudTtx) ;i(poi/c», ou aiojva. TTOTayopevofX€>;,
vid. also Philon. Quod Deus Immut. 6. Euseb. Laud, C. i prope
fin., p. SOI- Naz. Or. 38. 8. __
10 John xiv 6; x. 14; viii. 12 ; xiii. 13-^
I Gen. ii. 5. » Deut. xxxii. 8»
;i4
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
because I said. I so unto the Father, for Mv
Father is greater than I. And now I have
told you before it come to pass, that when
it is come to pass, ye might beheve^.' And
concerning the creation He savs bv Solomon,
' Or ever the earth was, when there were no
depths, I was brought forth ; when there were
no fountains abounding with water. Before
the mountains were settled, before the hills,
was I brought forth *.' And, ' Before Abraham
was, I ams.' And concerning Jeremiah He
says, * Before I formed thee in the womb, I
knew thee^.' And David in the Psalm says,
' Before the mountains were brought forth, or
ever the earth and the world were made, Thou
art God from everlasting and world without
end?.' And in Daniel, ' Susanna cried out
with a loud voice and said, O everlasting God,
that knowest the secrets, and knowest all
things before they be^.' Thus it appears that
the phrases 'once was not,' and 'before it
came to be,' and * when,' and the like, belong
to things originate and creatures, which come
out of nothing, but are alien to the Word.
But if such terms are used in Scripture of
things originate, but ' ever ' of the Word, it
follows, O ye enemies of God, that the Son
did not come out of nothing, nor is in the
number of originated things at all, but is
the Father's Image and Word eternal, never
having not been, but being ever, as the eter-
nal Radiances of a Light which is eternal.
^Vhy imagine then rimes before the Son ? or !
wherefore blaspheme the Word as after times,
by whom even the ages were made ? for how
did time or age at all subsist when the Word,
as you say, had not apjjeared, 'through' whom
'all things have been made and without' whom
'not one thing was made^°?' Or why, when
you mean time, do you not plainly say, *a rime
was when the Word was not ? ' But while you
drop the word 'time' to deceive the simple,
you do not at all conceal your ovrn feeling,
nor, even if you did, could you escape dis-
covery. For you still simply mean rimes,
when you say, ' There was when He was not,'
and ' He was not before His generation,'
CHAPTER V.
Subject Coxtixued.
Objection, that the Son's eternity makes Him co-ordi-
nate with the Father, introduces the subject of His
Divine Sonship, as a second proof of His eternity.
The word Son is intrcxiuced in a secondary, but is
to be understood in real sense. Since all things
partake of the Father in partaking of the Son, He
IS the whole p)articipation of the Father, that is, He
is the Son by nature ; for to be wholly participated
is to beget-
3 John xiv. 23, ag. « Prov. viii 23.
5 John viii. 58. 6 Jer. i. 5. 7 fs. xc. 2.
• //ist. Sus. 42 5 <fe Deer. 23. note 4. *« John L 3.
14. Whex these points are thus proved,
their profaneness goes further. ' If there
never was, when the Son was not,' say they,
'but He is eternal, and coexists with the
Father, you call Him no more the Father's Son,
but brother'.' O insensate and contentious!
For if we said only that He was eternally with
the Father, and not His Son, their pretended
scruple would have some plausibility; but if,
while we say that He is eternal, we also
confess Him to be Son from the Father,
how can He that is begotten be considered
brother of Him who begets? And if our
faith is in Father and Son, what brotherhood
is there between them? and how can the
Word be called brother of Him whose Word
He is? This is not an objection of men
really ignorant, for they compr-hend how the
truth lies; but it is a Jewish pretence, and
that from those who, in Solomon's words,
'through desire separate themselves^' from
the truth. For the Father and the Son were
not generated from some pre-existing origin 3,
that we may account Them brothers, but the
Father is the Origin of the Son and begat Him ;
and the Father is Father, and not born the
Son of any ; and the Son is Son, and not brother.
Further, if He is called the eternal offspring*
of the Father, He is rightly so called For
never was the essence of the Father im-
perfect, that what is proper to it should be
added after\^-ards5; nor, as man from man.
* This was an objectioo urged by Eunomias, cf. de Syn. 51,
note 3. It is implied also io the Apolog>- of the iormia, % 24, s^
in BasiL contr. Eunotn. ii. zS. Aedus was in Alezaodria with
dtfiT^^ of Cappadoda, A.D. 356-8, and Athan. wrote tb^ Dis-
courses in the Utter year, as the de Syn. at the end of the next.
Ii is probable then that he is allodirig to the Anomoean argnmems
as he heard them reported, vid- de Syn. I.e. where he says, ' they
say, "as you have written,"' i 51. Kvonjavoi hot oxivuiv is men-
tioned Loir, f 17. As the Arians here object that the First and
SeooDd Posoos of the Holy Trinity are aitXi^oi, so did they say
toe same in the course of the controversy of the Second and Third.
vid. Sera/. L 15. iv. 2.
' Prov. xvijL I. 3 Vid. de S^. { 51.
'• In other words, by the Divine yci/r-j}<rts is not meant an act
but an eternal and tuidiai^eable fact, in the Divine Essence.
Alius, not aidmitting this, objected at the outset of the controversy
to the phrase 'always Father, always Son,' Theod. H- E. i. ^
p. 749, and Eunomius argues that, 'li the Sc« is co.«temai with
the Father, the Father was never such in act, ivfprfos, but was
apyos.' CyriL Thetaur. v. p. 41. S. CjtU answers that ' works,
i^ye., are made i^iobtv, 'fixMn without;' but that our Lord, as
S. Athanasius here says, is neither a ' woiic ' nor ' from without.
And hence he says elsewhere that, while men are fathers first
in posse then in act, God is ivvatm re <uu ivepyeuf a-arajp. Dial.
2. p. 458. (vid. supr. p. 65. note mX Victorinus m like maimer,
says, that God is potentia et actiooe Deus sed in aeteroa. Adv.
Ar.i.^ 202 ; and he quotes S. Alexander, speaking apparently
in answer to Arius, of a semper generans geneiatio. .^d Aritis
scoSs at ajeiyfWTi^ and ayeiTop^evifs. Theod. Hitt. i. 4. p. 749.
And Origen had said, o <r<</Ti)p iei yciTaTat. ap. Routh. Reliq. t. 4.
p. 304, and S. Dionysius calls Him the Radiance, a>/af>\ov ami
ictyeves. Sent. Dion 15. S. Augustine too says. Semper gignit
Pater, et semper nasatur Filius. Ep. x-jZ. a- 4. >'etav, de Trin
li. 3- n. 7, quotes the following pa^^sage from llieodorus Abiicaiay
' .Since the Son's %,eaerali'iia d'jt^ but signify His having His
existence from the Father, which He has ever, therefore He is
ever hegocun. Fcr it became Hitn, who is properly (jcvpuaf) the
Scm, ever to be deriving His rristfiuv fixxn the Father, and not
as we who derive its commencement onl^. In us generation is
a way to existence ; in the Son of God it denotes the existence
itself; in Him it has not existence for its end, but it is itself an
end, Tc'Xof, and is perfect, riXttav.' Opuic. 26.
5 de Deer. 22, note 5.
DISCOURSE 1.
315
has the S>on been begotten, so as t '
than His Fathers existence, but H-
offspring, and as being proper Son of God,
who is ever, He exists eternally. For, whereas
it is proper to men to beget in time, from the
imperfection of their nature^, God's offspring
is eternal, for His nature is ever perfect 7.
If then He is not a Son, but a work made
out of nothing, they have but to prove it;
and then they are at liberty, as if imagining
about a creature, to cry out, * There was once
when He was not ; ' for things which are origi-
nated were not, and have come to be. But if
He is Son, as the Father says, and the Scrij>-
tures proclaim, and ' Son ' is nothing else than
v.hat is generated from the Father; and what
is generated from the Father is His Word, and
Wisdom, and Radiance; what is to be said
but that, in maintaining * Once the Son was
not,' they rob God of His Word, like plun
derers, and openly predicate of Him that He
was once without His proper Word and Wis-
dom, and that the Light was once without
radiance, and the Fountain was once barren
and dry*? For though they pretend alarm
at the name of time, because of those who
reproach them with it, and say, that He was
before times, yet whereas they assign certain
intervals, in which they imagine He was not,
they are most irreligious still, as equally sug-
gesting times, and imputing to God an ab-
sence of Reason 9.
15. But if on the other hand, while they
acknowledge with us the name of ' Son,' from
an xmwillingness to be publicly and generally
condemned, they deny that the Son is the
proper offspring of the Father's essence, on
the ground that this must imply parts and
divisions' ; what is this but to deny that He
is very Son, and only in name to call Him
Son at all ? And is it not a grievous error, to
have material thoughts about what is imma-
terial, and because of the weakness of their
proper nature to deny what is natural and
proper to the Father? It does but remain,
that they should deny Him also, because they
imderstand not how God is*, and what the
* Infr. I 26 fin., and de Deer, 12, oote 2.
7 Vid. tufr. Dote 4. A aonlar pasK^e is fooad a Cp3.
TTuuatr. T. p. 42, Dial. u. Sa. this was letotOog the cibfetxtom ;
tbe Arians said, ' How caa God be ever perfect, wbo added to
Hiipsfif a Son?* Alfaaa. aasvets, ' How caa dte Sow aoc be
eternal, since God is ever perfect?' vid. Gie& N]n«ca. e0ii^.
Evnom. A^Jend. p. 142. CynL Tkeautur. x. p. ji. As to the
So:, i i/tritx3kia, Aeoot objects ap^ Epiph. Hter. 76. pp. gas, 6,
that growth and oooae^neat acoessiao fion vitboat were caBca.
tially iinrc4«ed in the idea of SonsUp; wfaexeas S. Gteg^ Kaz.
tprairt of the Soo as not m.r€3ui spor^or, etra. -riXaam, ^fftg tmpts
t^t TI§Lrnpmis -jrcvcff-cws. Omt. 20. 9 fin. la Eke lainari'. & Basfl
2i£oes agatng Enaomiiis. that the Son is riJuami, Imaiwr He is
tile Im^e, not jas if cofieA, whidi is a giarinal woffc, bat as
a X'^'^xT^p, or iaqaessioB of a seal, or as the knowiedge coas-
nnmicated horn maattt to scholar, which eamti to tiie fcttleraad
exists ia Uai perfect, witfaoat boag lost to tiie lonaeb comtr.
£ttmotm. a. t6im.
^ dt Deer. 12. 15. 9 lb. 22. note t, ia6^ | v^
• Dt Deer. H 10, It. » Iiir. { 23.
^ ther is, now tiiat, foolish men, 'hey measure
., themselves the Offspring of tne Father.
And persons in such a state of mind a, to
consider that there cannot be a Son of God,
demand our pity; but they must be interro
gated and exposed for the chance of bringing
them to their senses. If then, as yon say,
'the Son is from nothing,' and * was not before
His generation,' He, oif course^ as well as
others, must be called Son and God and
Wisdom only by participation; for thus all
other creatures consist, and by sanctifi cation
are glorified. You have to tell us then, rf
what He is partaker^. All other things par-
take of the Spirit, but He, according to you,
of what is He partaker? of the Spirit? Nay,
rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son,
as He Himself sa) s ; and it is not reasonable
to say that the latter is sanctified by the
former. Therefore it is the Father that He
partakes ; for this only remains to say. But
this, which is participated, what is it or
whence*? If it be something external pro-
vided by the Father, He will not now be
partaker of the Father, but of what is external
to Him ; and no longer will He be even
second after the Father, since He has befic^e
Him this other ; nor can He be called Son of
the Father, but of th.at, as partaking which
He has been called Son and God. And if
this be unseemly and irreUgioos, when the
Father says, 'This is My Beloved SonV and
when the Son says that God is His own
Father, it follows that what is partaken is not
external, but from the essence of the Father.
And as to this again, if it be other than the
essence of the Son, an equal extravagance
*-ill meet us ; there being in that case some-
thing between this that is from the Father
and the essence of the Son, whatever that be^.
16. Such thoughts then being evidently un-
seemly and untrue, we are driven to say that what
is from the essence of the Father, and proper to
Him, is entirely the Son ; for it is all one to say
that God is wholly participated, and that He
3 De Sjr*. if 43. 5S. • -Wc- Def- 9, ■«« 4-
5 Msft iiL 17.
< Here is ta^^ as de strict aakjr of the DMae
When it is sas<i that the Fast Penan «f the tUkf To
anaacates dMnity to the Secoad, it is aeaat that thatoa
arinch is the Father, afao is die Soa. Ueooe the soroeotAe
woid»»t— >wr, which was iaeonseqacacrafrwwdcf Sal, iifMi.iaiiai.
bat was JasaagfuAtA ftvm. it hy die particle arMv, 'uigrAtr,
arUcfa iamlied a dtfercaee as well as irattj : ■wmtaatt tmrrmmimmm
or o»twm0vm- ymtf^A, wiA Ae Sabriliaas. aa ideality ar a coa-
teion. The Amaa, oa Ae other hand, as ia the iamacr of
Eaieaii>s,ftc., saKpL7S,aate7; di;J>».a6.aaCe3; coaadeaed
die Fadter and the Soa two mrimt. The CathoBc docxne is ctaot,
thoa^ the Liiviae g«fce is both the Father lasracnlf aad
abo lite Oaly-begoaca Soa, it ia aot itaetf aWw<;ii or ya/rwrn ;
which was the otyctioa aiiged against the CadrJiGS bj- A's^risn,
Ifipb. Hter. j6, to. G. de Dtcr. { 30, thrnt. m. % 3P t^
Kxfm.Fid.i.ynA.d£ Sym.4,y,vaut\. *YeaLetaeuaKisJ>awMi»m^
ti6 VJtSL penaaaensL **"'*** sc ^ ivp^THfiT vexitati sulititatiaMawaa!.
Foment. JEo^. 7. Aad S. Biiatr, ^rpjat as Batre est et ia FiSa
pcrfirctaM natintatea.* Trim. rJL jx.
$i6
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
begets; and what does begetting signify but a
Son ? And thus of the Son Himself, all things
partake according to the grace of the Spirit
coming from Him 7 ; and this shews that the
Son Himself partakes of nothing, but what is
partaken from the Father, is the Son ; for, as
partaking of the Son Himself, we are said to
partake of God ; and this is what Peter said,
* that ye may be partakers in a divine nature^ ; '
as says too the Apostle, ' Know ye not, that ye
are a temple of God?' and, 'We are the temple
of a living God 9.' And beholding the Son, we
see the Father ; for the thought^" and compre-
hension of the Son, is knowledge concerning
the Father, because He is His proper offspring
from His essence. And since to be partaken
no one of us would ever call affection or divi-
sion of God's essence (for it has been shewn
and acknowledged that God is participated,
and to be participated is the same thing as to
beget) ; therefore that which is begotten is
neither affection nor division of that blessed
essence. Hence it is not incredible that
God should have a Son, the Offspring of His
own essence ; nor do we imply affection or
division of God's essence, when we speak of
* Son ' and ' Offspring ; ' but rather, as ac-
knowledging the genuine, and true, and Only-
begotten of God, so we believe. If then,
• as we have stated and are shewing, what is
the Offspring of the Father's essence be the
Son, we cannot hesitate, rather we must be
certain, that the same" is the Wisdom and
Word of the Father, in and through whom He
creates and makes all things ; and His Bright-
ness too, in whom He enlightens all things, and
is revealed to whom He will ; and His Expres-
sion and Image also, in whom He is contem-
plated and known, wherefore * He and His
Father are one ',' and whoso looketh on Him,
looketh on the Father; and the Christ, in whom
all things are redeemed, and the new creation
wrought afresh. And on the other hand, the
Son being such Offspring, it is not fitting,
rather it is full of peril, to say, that He is a
work out of nothing, or that He was not before
His generation. For he who thus speaks of
that which is proper to the Fatlier's essence,
already blasphemes the Father Himself ^^ ;
since he really thinks of Him what he falsely
imagines of His offspring.
CHAPTER VI.
Subject Continued.
Third proof of the Son's eternity, viz. from other titles
indicative of His coessentiality ; as the Creator ; as
' ^*^"^: * 3». 8 a Pet. L 4.
9 I Cor. uu 16 ; 3 Cor. vi. i6. 10 euvoia, vid. de Syn. § 48
fin. «« de Deer. 17, 34. » John x. 30. 2 de Deer, i,
note. I
One of the Blessed Trinity; as Wisdom ; as Word; as
Image. If the Son is a perfect Image of the Father,
why is He not a Father also? because God, being
perfect, is not the origin of a race. Only the Father
a Father because the Only Father, only the Son
a Son because the Only Son. Men are not really
fathers and really sons, but shadows of the True.
The Son does not become a Father, because He has
received from the Father to be immutable and ever
the same.
17. This is of itself a sufficient refutation
of the Arian heresy ; however, its heterodoxy
will appear also from the following : — If
God be Maker and Creator, and create His
works through the Son, and we cannot regard
things which come to be, except as being
through the Word, is it not blasphemous, God
being Maker, to say, that His Framing Word
and His Wisdom once was not ? it is the same
as saying, that God is not Maker, if He had not
His proper Framing Word which is from Him,
but that That by which He frames, accrues to
Him from without 3, and is alien from Him, and
unlike in essence. Next, let them tell us
this, — or rather learn from it how irreligious
they are in saying, ' Once He was not,' and,
' He was not before His generation ; ' — for if
the Word is not with the Father from everlast-
ing, the Triad is not everlasting ; but a Monad
was first, and afterwards by addition it became
a Triad ; and so as time went on, it seems
what we know concerning God grew and took
shape 4. And further, if the Son is not proper
offspring of the Father's essence, but of
nothing has come to be, then of nothing the
Triad consists, and once there was not a
Triad, but a Monad ; and a Triad once with
deficiency, and then complete; deficient, before
the Son was originated, complete when He had
come to be ; and henceforth a thing originated
is reckoned with the Creator, and what once
was not has divine worship and glory with Him
who was ever s. Nay, what is more serious
still, the Triad is discovered to be unlike Itself,
consisting of strange and alien natures and
essences. And this, in other words, is say-
ing, that the Triad has an originated con-
sistence. What sort of a religion then is this,
which is not even like itself, but is in process
of completion as time goes on, and is now
not thus, and then again thus ? For probably
it will receive some fresh accession, and so
on without limit, since at first and at starting
it took its consistence by way of accessions.
And so undoubtedly it may decrease on the
contrary, for what is added plainly admits of
being subtracted.
1 8. But this is not so : perish the thought ;
the Triad is not originated ; but there is an
eternal and one Godhead in a Triad, and
3 de Deer. 25, note a. 4 Vid. Orat. i v. § 13. 5 § 8, note 8.
DISCOURSE I.
l^^J
there is one Glory of the Holy Triad. And
you presume to divide it into different natures ;
the Father being eternal, yet you say of the
Word which is seated by Him, * Once He was
not;' and, whereas the Son is seated by the
Father, yet you think to place Him far from
Him. The Triad is Creator and Framer,
and you fear not to degrade It to things which
are from nothing; you scruple not to equal
servile beings to the nobility of the Triad,
and to rank the King, the Lord of Sabaoth,
with subjects^. Cease this confusion of things
unassociable, or rather of things which are not
with Him who is. Such statements do not
glorify and honour the Lord, but the reverse ;
for he who dishonours the Son, dishonours
also the Father. For if the doctrine of God
is now perfect in a Triad, and this is the
true and only Religion, and this is the good
and the truth, it must have been always so,
unless the good and the truth be something
that came after, and the doctrine of God is
completed by additions. I say, it must have
been eternally so; but if not eternally, not
so at present either, but at present so, as you
suppose it was from the beginning, — I mean,
not a Triad now. But such heretics no
Christian would bear; it belongs to Greeks,
to introduce an originated \. riad, and to level
It with things originate : for these do admit of
deficiencies and additions ; but the faith of
Christians acknowledges the blessed Triad
as unalterable and perfect and ever what It
was, neither adding to It what is more, nor
imputing to It any loss (for both ideas are
irreligious), and therefore it dissociates It from
all things generated, and it guards as indi-
visible and worships the unity of the Godhead
Itself; and shuns the Arian blasphemies, and
confesses and acknowledges that the Son was
ever; for He is eternal, as is the Father, of
whom He is the Eternal Word, — to which
subject let us now return again.
19. If God be, and be called, the Fountain
of wisdom and life — as He says by Jeremiah,
' They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living
waters ^ ; ' and again, ' A glorious high throne
from the beginning, is the place of our sanc-
tuary ; O Lord, the Hope of Israel, all that
forsake Thee shall be ashamed, and they that
depart from Me shall be written in the earth,
because they have forsaken the Lord, the
Fountain of living waters ^ ; ' and in the book
of Baruch it is written, 'Thou hast forsaken
the Fountain of wisdom 9,' — this implies that
life and wisdom are not foreign to the Es-
sence of the Fountain, but are proper to It,
« D* Dter. § 31.
7 Jer. «. 13.
9 Bar. iii. 12.
■ lb. xviL 12, 13.
nor were at any time without existence, but
were always. Now the Son is all this, who
says, ' I am the Life ^°,' and, ' I Wisdom dwell
with prudence ".' Is it not then irreligious to
say, ' Once the Son was not ? ' for it is all one
with saying, ' Once the Fountain was dry, des-
titute of Life and Wisdom.' But a fountain it
would then cease to be ; for what begetteth
not from itself, is not a fountain ^ What a
load of extravagance ! for God promises that
those who do His will shall be as a fountain
which the water fails not, saying by Isaiah the
prophet, 'And the Lord shall satisfy thy soul
in drought, and make thy bones fat ; and thou
shalt be like a watered garden, and like a
spring of water, whose waters fail not 2.' And
yet these, whereas God is called and is a Foun-
tain of wisdom, dare to insult Him as barren
and void of His proper Wisdom. But their
doctrine is false ; truth witnessing that God is
the eternal Fountain of His proper Wisdom ;
and, if the Fountain be eternal, the Wisdon)
also must needs be eternal. For in It were all
things made, as David says in the Psalm, * In
Wisdom hast Thou made them all3;' and
Solomon says, 'The Lord by Wisdom hath
formed the earth, by understanding hath He
established the heavens 1' And this Wisdom
is the Word, and by Him, as John says, ' all
things were made,' and ' without Him was
made not one thing s.' And this Word is
Christ; for 'there is One God, the Father,
from whom are all things, and we for Him ;
and One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom
are all things, and we through Him ^.' And if
all things are through Him, He Himself is not
to be reckoned with that ' all ' For he who
dares' to call Him, through whom are all
things, one of that ' all,' surely will have like
speculations concerning God, from whom are
all. But if he shrinks from this as unseemly,
and excludes God from that all, it is but con-
sistent that he should also exclude from that
all the Only-Begotten Son, as being proper to
the Father's essence. And, if He be not one
of the all ^ it is sin to say concerning Him,
' He was not,' and * He was not before His
generation.' Such words may be used of the
creatures ; but as to the Son, He is such as
the Father is, of whose essence He is proper
Offspring, Word, and Wisdom 9. For this
is proper to the Son, as regards the Father,
and this shews that the Father is proper to
the Son ; that we may neither say that God
was ever without Word ", nor that the Son
»o John xiv. 6. " Prov. viii. 13. ' Supr. § <g.
« Isa. Iviii. II. 3 Ps. civ. 24. 4 Piov. iii. 9.
S John i. 3. [See Westcott's additional note on the passage.]
' I Cor. viii. 6. 7 Vid. Petav. de Trin. ii. 12, § 4.
8 De Deer. § 30. 9 De Deer. % 17.
»o oAoyoi'. Vid. note on de Deer. §§ i, 15, where other in-
3iS
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
was non-existent. For wherefore a Son, if not
from Him ? or wherefore Word and Wisdom,
if not ever proper to Him ?
20. When then was God without that which
is proper to Him ? or how can a man consider
that which is proper, as foreign and alien in
essence? for other things, according to the
nature of things originate, are without likeness
in essence with the Maker ; but are external
to Him, made by the Word at His grace and
will, and thus admit of ceasing to be, if it so
pleases Him who made them ^ ; for such is the
nature of things originate ^. But as to what is
proper to the Father's essence (for this we
have already found to be the Son), what daring
is it in irreligion to say that ' This comes from
nothing,' and that ' It was not before genera-
tion,' but was adventitious 3, and can at some
time cease to be again ? Let a person only
dwell upon this thought, and he will discern
how the perfection and the plenitude of the
Father's essence is impaired by this heresy ;
however, he will see its unseemhness still
more clearly, if he considers that the Son is
the Image and Radiance of the Father, and
Expression, and Truth. For if, when Light
exists, there be withal its Image, viz. Ra-
diance, and, a Subsistence existing, there be of
it the entire Expression, and, a Father ex-
isting, there be His Truth (viz. the Son) ; let
them consider what depths of irreligion they
fall into, who make time the measure of the
Image and Form of the Godhead. For
if the Son was not before His generation.
stances are given from Athan. and Dionysius of Rome ; vid. also
Orat. iv. 2, 4. Sent. D. 23. Origen, supr. p. 48. Athenag. Leg. 10.
Tat. contr. Grcec. 5. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. Hipp, contr. Noet.
JO. Nyssen. contr. Eunotn. vii. p. 215. viii. pp. 230, 240. Orat.
Catech. i. Naz. Orat. 29. 17 fin. Cyril. Thesaur. xiv. p. 145 (vid.
Petav. de Trin. vi. 9). It must not be supposed from these in-
stances that the Fathers meant that our Lord was literally what is
called the attribute of reason or wisdom in the Divine Essence,
or in other words, that He was God merely viewed as He is wise ;
which would be a kind of Sabellianism. But, whereas their oppo-
nents said that He was but called Word and Wisdom after the
attribute (vid. de Syn. 15, note), they said that such titles
marked, not only a typical resemblance to the attribute, but so
full a correspondence and (as it were) coincidence in nature with
It, that whatever relation that attribute had to God, such in kind
had the Son ;- that the attribute was His symbol, and not His
mere archetype ; that our Lord was eternal and proper to God,
because that attribute was, which was His title, vid. Ep. Mg. 14,
that our Lord was that Essential Reason and Wisdom,— not by
which the Father is wise, but without which the Father was not
wise ; — not, that is, in the way of a formal cause, but xnfact. Or,
whereas the father Himself is Reason and Wisdom, the Son is the
necessary result of that Reason and Wisdom, so that, to say that
there was no Word, would imply there was no Divine Reason ;
just as a radiance implies a light ; or, as Petavius remarks, I.e.
quoting the words which follow sliortly after in the text, the
eternity of the Original implies the eternity of the Image ; Tijs
VJroo-Tao-eojs uTrapxoiio-ijs, Trai/rcos evSii? eWt Sei Toi/ xapaKT^pa koX
TTi\v iiKova TauTTjs, § 20. vid. also infr. § 31, de Deer. § 13, p. zi,
is 20, 23, pp. 35, 40. Theod. H E.x. 3. p. 737.
» This was but the opposite aspect of the tenet of our Lord's
consubstantiality or eternal generation. For if He came into
°^'".S fj'.'he will of God, by the same will He might cease to be ;
but if His existence is unconditional and necessary, as God's attri-
butes might be, then as He had no beginning, so can He have no
end_; for He is in, and one with, the Fatlier, who has neither
beginning nor end. On the question of the 'will of God' as it
aflfects the doctrine, vid. Orat. iii. § 59, &c.
• i «9. note- 3 De Deer. 22, note 9.
Truth was not always in God, which it were a
sin to say ; for, since the Father was, there
was ever in Him the Truth, which is the Son,
who says, ' I am the Truth +.' And the Sub-
sistence existing, of course tliere was forthwith
its Expression and Image ; for God's Image is
not delineated from without s, but God Him-
self hath begotten it ; in which seeing Himself,
He has delight, as the Son Himself says, * I
was His delight^' When then did the Father
not see Himself in His own Image ? or when
had He not delight, that a man should dare to
say, ' the Image is out of nothing,' and ' The
Father had not delight before the Image was
originated ?' and how should the Maker and
Creator see Himself in a created and originated
essence? for such as is the Father, such
must be the Image.
21. Proceed we then to consider the attri-
butes of the Father, and we shall come to know
whether this Image is really His. The Father
is eternal, immortal, powerful, light. King,
Sovereign, God, Lord, Creator, and Maker.
These attributes must be in the Image, to
make it true that he ' that hath seen ' the Son
'hath seen the Father?.' If the Son be not
all this, but, as the Arians consider, origi-
nate, and not eternal, this is not a true
Image of the Father, unless indeed they give
up shame, and go on to say, that the title of
Image, given to the Son, is not a token of a
similar essence^, but His name 9 only. But
this, on the other hand, O ye enemies of Christ,
is not an Image, nor is it an Expression. For
what is the likeness of what is out of nothing
to Him who brought what was nothing into
being ? or how can that which is not, be
like Him that is, being short of Him in once
not being, and in its having its place among
things originate ? However, such the Arians
wishing Him to be, devised for themselves
arguments such as this ; — ' If the Son is the
Father's offspring and Image, and is like
in all things '° to the Father, then it neces-
4 John xiv. 6.
5 Athan. argues from the very name Image for our Lord's
eternity. An Image, to be really such, must be an expression
from the Original, not an external and detached imitation, vid.
supr. note lo, infr. § 26. Hence S. Basil, ' He is an Image not
made with the hand, or a work 01 art, but a living Image,' &c.
vid. also contr. Eunofn. ii. 16, 17. Epiph. Hier. 76. 3. Hilar.
Trin. vii. 41 fin. Origen observes that man, on the contrary, is an
example of an external or improper image of God. Periarch- i. 2.
§6. It might have been more direct to have argued from the
name of Image to our Lord's consubstantiality rather than eter-
nity, as, e.g. S. Gregory Naz. 'He is Image as one in essence,
ofi-oovdiov, . . . for this is the nature of an image, to be a copy
of the archetype.' Orat. 30. 20. vid. also de Deer. §§ 20, 23, but
for whatever reason Athan. avoids the word hii.oov<ri.ov in these
Discourses. S. Chrys. on Col. i. 15.
6 Prov. viii 30. 7 John xiv. 9.
8 'ofxoia.% ovcrias. And so § 20 init. o/xoioi' Kar ov(ria.v, and
o/ioios TTjs ovatai, § 26. il/ioios Kar' outnaf, iii. 26. and o^oios Kara
TTji/ ova-iav Toi) Trarpos. Ep. JEg. 17. Also Alex. Ep. Encycl. 2.
Considering what he says in the de Syn. § 38, &c., in controversy
with the semi-Ariaiis a year or two later, this use of their formula,
in preference to the bfj-ooviriov (vid. foregoing note), deserves out
attention. 9 De Dtcr. § i6. »o De Syn. 27 (5) note i, and
infr. § 40.
DISCOURSE I.
3i9
sarily holds that as He is begotten, so He
begets, and He too becomes father of a
son. And again, he who is begotten from
Him, begets in his turn, and so on with-
out limit ; for this is to make the Begotten
Hke Him that begat Him.' Authors of blas-
phemy, verily, are these foes of God ! who,
sooner than confess that the Son is the Father's
Image^, conceive material and earthly ideas con-
cerning the Father Himself, ascribing to Him
severings and" eflluences and influences. If
then God be as man, let Him become also a pa-
rent as man, so that His Son should be father
of another, and so in succession one from an-
other, till the series they imagine grows into
a multitude of gods. But if God be not as
man, as He is not, we must not impute to Him
the attributes of man. For brutes and men,
after a Creator has begun them, are begotten
by succession ; and the son, having been be-
gotten of a father who was a son, becomes ac-
cordingly in his turn a father to a son, in inher-
iting from his father that by which he himself
has come to be. Hence in such instances
there is not, properly speaking, either father
or son, nor do the father and the son stay in
their respective characters, for the son himself
becomes a father, being son of his father, but
father of his son. But it is not so in the God-
head ; for not as man is God ; for the Father
is not from a father ; therefore doth He not be-
get one who shall become a father ; nor is the
Son from effluence of the Father, nor is He be-
gotten from a father that was begotten ; there-
» I'he objection is this, that, if our Lord be the Father's Image,
He ought to resemble Him in being a Father. S. Athanasius
answers that God is not as man ; with us a son becomes a father
because our nature is peuo-Tjj, transitive and without stay, ever
shifting and passing on into new forms and relations ; but that
God is perfect and ever the same, what He is once that He
continues to be ; God the Father remains Father, and God the
Son remains Son. Moreover men become fathers by detach-
ment and transmission, and what is received is handed on in
a succession ; whereas the Father, by imparting Himself wholly,
begets the Son : and a perfect nativity finds its termination in
itself. The Son has not a Son, because the Father has not
a Father. Thus the Father is the only true Father, and the Son
alone true Son ; the Father only a Father, the Son only a Son ;
being really in their Persons what human fathers are but by office,
character, accident, and name ; vid. De Deer, ii, note 6. Ana
since the Father is unchangeable as Father, in nothing does the
Son more fulfil the idea of a perfect Image than in being un-
changeable too. Thus. S. Cyril also, TJiesaur. lo. p. 124. And
this perhaps may illustrate a strong and almost startling impli-
cation of some of the Greek Fathers, that the First Person in the
Holy Trinity, is not (iod \in virtue of His Fatherhood]. E.g. ei 6e
^€0? 6 vtbs, ovK €7r€t vios" 6/i.o((os K(xi 6 jraTTjp. oitK €7ret Trarijp, 0e6?'
aK\' €Jr«c ovcrCa ToiciSe, el? earl narrjp Kol o vios 6(6^, Nyssen. t. i.
p. 915. vid. Petav. de Deo i. g. § 13. Should it be asked, ' What
js the Father if not God?" it is enough to answer, 'the Father.'
Men differ from each other as being individuals, but the character-
istic difference between Father and Sun is, not that they are
individuals, but that tliey are Father and Son. In these extreme
Statements it must be ever borne in mind that we are contem-
plating divine things according to our notions, not m/act: i.e.
spe.-ikiiig of the Almighty Father, as such; there being no real
separation between His Person and His Substance. It may be
added, that, though theologians differ in their decisions, it would
appear that our Lord is not the Image of the Father's person, but
of Itie Father's substance ; in other words, not of the lather con-
udered as Father, but considered as God That is, God the Son
Is like and equal to God the Father, because they are both the
same God. De Syn. 49. note 4, also ne.\t note
» Ef. Eut, 7, de Deer, ii, note 8.
fore neither is He begotten so as to beget.
Thus it belongs to the Godhead alone, that
the Father is properly 3 father, and the Son pro-
perly son, and in Them, and Them only, does
it hold that the Father is ever Father and the
Son ever Son.
22. Therefore he who asks why the Son is not
to beget a son, must inquire why the Father had
not a father. But botli suppo.sitioas are un-
seemly and full of impiety. For as the Father is
ever Father and never could become Son, so the
Son is ever Son and never could become Father.
For in this rather is He shewn to be the
Father's Expression and Image, remaining
what He is and not changing, but thus receiv-
ing from the Father to be one and the same.
If then the Father change, let the Image
change ; for so is the Image and Radiance in
its relation towards Him who begat It. But
if the Father is unalterable, and what He is
that He continues, necessarily does the Image
also continue what He is, and will not alter.
Now He is Son from the Father; therefore He
will not become other than is proper to the
Father's essence. Idly then have the foolish
ones devised this objection also, wishing to
separate the Image from the Father, that they
might level the Son with things originated.
CHAPTER VII.
Objections to the Foregoing Proof.
Whether, in the generation of the Son, God made One
that was already, or One that was not.
22 {continued). Ranking Him among these,
according to the teaching of Eusebius, and ac-
counting Him such as the things which come
into being through Him, Arius and his fellows re-
volted from the truth, and used, when they com-
menced this heresy, to go about with dishonest
phrases which they had got together ; nay, up
to this time some of them % when they fall in
3 Kvpi(o9, de Deer, ii, note 6. Elsewhere Athan. says, ' The
Father being one and only is Father of a Son one and only : and
in the instance of Godhead only have the names Father and Son
stay, and are ever ; for of men if any one be called father, yet
he has been son of another ;' and if he be called son, yet is he
called father of another ; so that in the case of men the names
father aijd son do not properly, Kupt'ws, hold.' ad Serap. i. i6. also
ibid. iv. 4 fin. and 6. vid. also Kupius, Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. 5.
dAijSw?, Orat. 25, 16. oi/tcus. Basil, contr. Eiinom. i. 5. p. 215.
I This miserable procedure, of making sacred and mysterious
subjects a matter of popular talk and debate, which is a sure mark
of heresy, had received a great stimulus about this time by the
rise of the Anomoeans. Eusebius's testimony to the profaneness
which attended Arianism upon its rise will be given de Syn,
2, note I. The Thalia is another instance of it. S. Alex-
ander speaks oi the interference, even judicial, in its behalf against
himself, of disobedient wumen. Si' ei'TVX'as yvfaiKapiwv araKTUv
a riTrdrricrav, and of the busy and indecent gadding about of the
younger, ck tov 7reptTpo;(atJ'eti/ Trao'ai' ayviav a.aefj.fu}s. ap. Theod.
//.E. i. 3. p. 730, also p. 747; also of the men's buffoon conver-
.sation, p. 731. Socrates says that ' in the Imperial Court, the
officers of the bedchamber held disputes with the women, and
in the city in every house there was a war of dialectics.' Hist. ii. 3.
This mania raged especially in Constantinople, and S. Gregory
Naz- speaks of 'Jezebels in as thick a crop as hemlock in a field."
Orat. 35. 3, cf. de Syn. 13, n. 4. He speaks of the heretics as
'aiming .it one thing only, how to m.nke good or refute point!;
of argument,' making ' every market-place resound with their
3-0
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
with boys in the market-place, question them,
not out of divine Scripture, but thus, as if
bursting with ' the abundance of their heart' ; '
— * He who is, did He make him who was not,
from that which was [not], or him who was ?
therefore did He make the Son, whereas
He was, or whereas He was not 3?' And
again, *Is the Unoriginate one or two?'
and 'Has He free will, and yet does not
alter at His own choice, as being of an
alterable nature ? for He is not as a stone to
remain by Himself unmoveable.' Next they
turn to silly women, and address them in turn
in this womanish language ; * Hadst thou a
son before bearing? now, as thou hadst not,
so neither was the Son of God before His gene-
ration.' In such language do the disgraceful
men sport and revel, and liken God to men,
pretending to be Christians, but changing God's
glory ' into an image made like to corruptible
man*,'
23. Words so senseless and dull deserved no
answer at all ; however, lest their heresy ap-
pear to have any foundation, it may be right,
though we go out of the way for it, to refute
them even here, especially on account of the
silly women who are so readily deceived by
them When they thus speak, they should have
inquired of an architect, whether he can build
without materials ; and if he cannot, whether it
follows that God could not make the universe
without materials s. Or they should have asked
every man, whether he can be without place ;
and if he cannot, whether it follows that God is
in place, that so they may be brought to shame
even by their audience. Or why is it that, on
hearing that God has a Son, they deny Him
by the parallel of themselves ; whereas, if they
hear that He creates and makes, no longer do
they object their human ideas ? they ought in
creation also to entertain the same, and to
supply God with materials, and so deny Him
to be Creator, till they end in grovelling with
words^ and spoiling every entertainment with their trifling and
oflFensive talk.' Orat. 27. a. The most remarkable testimony of
the kind though not concerning Constantinople, is given by S. Gre-
gory Nyssen, and often quoted, ' Men -of yesterday and the day
before, mere mechanics, off-hand dogmatists in theology, servants
too and slaves that have been flogged, runaways fronl servile
work, are solemn with us and philosophical about things incom-
prehensible. . . . With such the whole City is full ; its smaller gates,
forums, squares, thoroughfares ; the clothes-venders, the money-
lenders, the victuallers. Ask about pence, and he will discuss the
Generate and Ingenerate; inquire the price of bread, he answers,
Greater is the Father, and the Son is subject ; say that a bath
would suit you, and he defines that the Son is out of nothing.'
t. 2. p. 8q8. , _ , = Matt. xii. 34.
3 This objection is found in Alex. Ep. Encycl. a. 6 i>v Ceo? rov
fit) ovTa €K Tov fir) 61/TO'S. Again, ovra yey^vvriKe r) OVK ovra. Greg.
Orat. 29. 0- vyho answers it. Pseudo-Basil, contr. Eunom. iv.
p. 281. 2. Basil calls the question Tro\v6pv\AriTov, contr. Eunom.
li. 14. It will be seen to be but the Ariah formula of ' He was not
before His generation,' in another shape ; being but this, that the
very fact of His being begotten or a Son, implies a beginning,
that is, a time when He was not : it being by the very force of the
words absiu-d to say that ' God begat Him that a/aj," or to deny
that 'Godbegat Him that was not: For the symbol, ouk ^v irpiv
yevvr)6-(i, vid. Excursus B. at the end of this Discourse.
4 Rom. i. 33, and g a. 5 D* Deer, g 11, esp. note 6.
Manichees. But if the bare idea of God tran-
scends such thoughts, and, on very first hear-
ing, a man believes and knows that He is in
being, not as we are, and yet in being as God,
and creates not as man creates, but yet creates
as God, it is plain that He begets also not as
men beget, but begets as God. For God does
not make man His pattern ; but rather we
men, for that God is properly, and alone truly^,
Father of His Son, are also called fathers of
our own children ; for of Him ' is every father-
hood in heaven and earth named 7.' And their
positions, while un scrutinized, have a shew of
sense ; but if any one scrutinize them by rea-
son, they will be found to incur much derision
and mockery.
24. For first of all, as to their first question,
which is such as this, how dull and vague it
is ! they do not explain who it is they ask
about, so as to allow of an answer, but they
say abstractedly, ' He who is,' ' him who is
not' Who then 'is,' and what 'are not,' O
Arians ? or who ' is,' and who ' is not ? ' what
are said ' to be,' what ' not to be ? ' for He
that is, can make things which are not, and
which are, and which were before. For in-
stance, carpenter, and goldsmith, and potter,
each, according to his own art, works upon
materials previously existing, making what
vessels he pleases ; and the God of all Him-
self, having taken the dust of the earth existing
and already brought to be, fashions man ; that
very earth, however, whereas it was not once.
He has at one time made by His own Word.
If then this is the meaning of their question,
the creature on the one hand plainly was not
before its origination, and men, on the other,
work the existing material ; and thus their
reasoning is inconsequent, since both ' what
is ' becomes, and ' what is not ' becomes, as
these instances shew. But if they speak con-
cerning God and His Word, let them com-
plete their question and then ask. Was the
God, 'who is,' ever without Reason? and,
whereas He is Light, was He ray-less ? or was
He always Father of the Word ? Or again in
this manner. Has the Father 'who is' made
the Word ' who is not,' or has He ever with
Him His Word, as the proper offspring of His
substance ? This will shew them that they do
but presume and venture on sophisms about
God and Him who is from Him. Who in-
deed can bear to hear them say that God
was ever without Reason ? this is what they
fall into a second time, though endeavouring
in vain to escape it and to hide it with their
sophisms. Nay, one would fain not hear them
disputing at all, that God was not always
* De Deer. 31, note s.
7 Epb. iii. 15.
DISCOURSE 1.
321
Father, but became so afterwards (which is
necessary for their fantasy, that His Word
once was not),, considering the number of the
proofs already adduced against tliem ; while
John besides says, ' The Word was 7*,' and
Paul again writes, ' Who being the brightness of
His glory ^,' and, ' Who is over all, God blessed
for ever. Amen 9.'
25. They had best have been silent; but since
it is otherwise, it remains to meet their shame-
less question with a bold retort '. Perhaps on
seeing the counter absurdities which beset
themselves, they may cease to fight against the
truth. After many prayers " then that God
would be gracious to us, thus we might ask
them in turn ; God who is, has He so become,
whereas He was not ? or is He also before
His commg into being? whereas He is, did
He make Himself, or is He of nothing, and
being nothing before, did He suddenly appear
Himself? Unseemly is such an enquiry, both
unseemly and very blasphemous, yet parallel
with theirs ; for the answer they make abounds
in irreligion. But if it be blasphemous and
utterly irreligious thus to inquire about God, it
will be blasphemous too to make the like in-
qun-ies about His Word. However, by way of
exposing a question so senseless and so dull,
it is necessary to answer thus : — whereas God
is, He was eternally ; since then the Father is
ever. His Radiance ever is, which is His
Word. And again, God who is, hath from
Himself His Word who also is ; and neither
hath the Word been added, whereas He was
not before, nor was the Father once without
Reason. For this assault upon the Son makes
the blasphemy recoil upon the Father ; as if He
devised for Himself a Wisdom, and Word, and
Son from without 3 ; for whichever of these
titles you use, you denote the offspring from
the Father, as has been said. So that this
their objection does not hold; and naturally;
for denying the Logos they in consequence ask
questions which are illogical. As then if
a person saw the sun, and then inquired
concerning its radiance, and said, ' Did
that which is make that which was, or that
which was not,' he would be held not to
reason sensibly, but to be utterly mazed, be-
cause he fancied what is from the Light to
be external to it, and was raising questions,
when and where and whether it were made ;
in like manner, thus to speculate concerning
the Son and the Father and thus to inquire, is far
7" John i. I. 8 Heb. i. 3. 9 Rom. ix. 5.
1 Vid. Basil, conir. Eunom. ii. i7- . .
* This cautious and reverent way of speaking is a characteristic
of S. Athanasius, ad Scrap, i. i. vid. ii. init. ad Epict. 13 fin. ad
Max. init. contr. Apoll. i. init. ' I must ask another question,
bolder, yet with a religious intention ; be propitious, O Lord, &c.'
Orat. iii. 63, cf. de Deer. 12, note 8, 15, note 6, dc Syn. 51, note 4.
3 De Deer. 25, note a.
VOL. IV.
greater madness, for it is to conceive of the
Word of the Father as external to Him, and to
idly call the natural offspring a work, with
the avowal, ' He was not before His genera-
tion.' Nay, let them over and above take this
answer to their question ; — ^The Father who
was, made the Son who was, for 'the Word
was made flesh 4 ; ' and, whereas He was Son
of God, He made Him in consummation of the
ages also Son of Man, unless forsooth, after the
Samosatene, they affirm that He did not even
exist at all, till He became man.
26. This is sufiiicient from us in answer to
their first question. And now on your part, O
Arians, remembering your own words, tell us
whether He who was needed one who was
not for the framing of the universe, or one
who was ? You said that He made for Himself
His Son out of nothing, as an instrument
whereby to make the universe. Which then
is superior, that which needs or that which
supphes the need? or does not each supply
the deficiency of the other ? You rather prove
the weakness of the Maker, if He had not
power of Himself to make the universe, but
provided for Himself an instrument from with-
out 5, as carpenter might do or shipwright, un-
able to work anything without adze and saw !
Can anything be more irreligious ? yet why
should one dwell on its heinousness, when
enough has gone before to shew that their doc-
trine is a mere fantasy ?
CHAPTER VHL
Objections Continued.
Whether we may decide the question by the parallel of
human sons, which are born later than their parents.
No, for the force of the analogy lies in the idea of
connaturality. Time is not involved in the idea of
Son, but is adventitious to it, and does not attach
to God, because He is without parts and passions.
The titles Word and Wisdom guard our thoughts
of Him and His Son from this misconception. God
not a Father, as a Creator, in fosse from eternity,
because creation does not relate to the essence
of God, as generation does.
26. {^continued). NoR is answer needful to their
other, very simple and foolish inquiry, which
they put to silly women ; or none besides that
which has been already given, namely, that
it is not suitable to measure divine generation
by the nature of men. However, that as
before they may pass judgment on themselves,
it is well to meet them on the same ground,
thus : — Plainly, if they inquire of parents con-
cerning their son, let them consider whence
is the child which is begotten. For, granting
4 John i. 14-
5 opyavoi/, de Deer. 7, n. 6, de Syn. ay, note 11. This wa«
alleged by Arius, Socr. i. 6. and by Kusebius, Eccles. Thejl. L 8.
supr. Ep. Ehs., and by the Anomoeans, supr. de Df.r. 7, note i.
322
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
the parent had not a son before his begetting,
still, after having him, he had him, not as
external or as foreign, but as from him-
self, and proper to his essence and his exact
image, so that the former is beheld in the
latter, and the latter is contemplated in the
former. If then they assume from human
examples that generation implies time, why
not from the same infer that it implies the
Natural and the Proper % instead of extracting
serpent-like from the earth only what turns
to poison ? Those who ask of parents, and
say, 'Had you a son before you begot
him ? ' should add, ' And if you had a son,
did you purchase him from without as a
house or any other possession?' And then
you would be answered, ' He is not from
without, but from myself. For things which
are from without are possessions, and pass
from one to another ; but my son is from me,
proper and similar to my essence, not become
mine from another, but begotten of me; where-
fore I too am wholly in him, while I remain
myself what I am^' For so it is; though the
parent be distinct in time, as being man, who
himself has come to be in time, yet he too
would have had his child ever coexistent with
him, but that his nature was a restraint and
made it impossible. For Levi too was already
in the loins of his great-grandfather, before his
own actual generation, or that of his grand-
father. When then the man comes to that age
at which nature supplies the power, imme-
diately, with nature unrestrained, he becomes
father of the son from himself.
27. Therefore, if on asking parents about
children, they get for answer, that children
which are by nature are not from without, but
from their parents, let them confess in like
* Supr. de Deer. 6. The question was, What was that sense
of Son which would apply to the Divine Nature? The Catholics
said that its essential meaning could apply, viz. consubstantiality,
whereas the point of posteriority to the Father depended on a con-
dition, tune, which could not exist in the instance of God. ib. 10.
The Arians on the other hand said, that to suppose a true Son,
was to think of God irreverently, as implying division, change, &c.
The Catholics replied that the notion of materiality was quite
as foreign from the Divine Essence as time, and as the Divine
Sonship was eternal, so was it also clear both of imperfection or
extension,
2 It is from expressions such as this that the Greek Fathers
have been accused of tritheism. The truth is, every illustration,
as being incomplete on one or other side of it, taken by itself,
tends to heresy. The title Son by itself suggests a second God,
as the title Word a mere attribute, and the title Instrument a
creature. All heresies are partial views of the truth, and are
wrong, not so much in what they say, as in what they deny. The
truth, on the other hand, is a positive and comprehensive doctrine,
and in consequence necessarily mysterious and open to miscon-
ception, vid. de Syn. 41, note i. When Athan. implies that the
Eternal Father is in the Son, though remaining what He is, as
a man in his child, he is intent only upon the point of the Son's
connaturality and equality, which the Arians denied. Cf. Orat.
iii. § 5 ; Ps.-Ath. Dial. i. (Migne xxviii. 1144 C). S. Cyril even
seems to deny that each individual man may be considered a
separate substance except as the Three Persons are .such {Dial.
i. p. 409) ; and S. Gregory Nyssen is led to say that, strictly
speaking, the abstract man, which is predicated of separate in-
dividuals, is still one, and this with a view of illustrating the
Divine Unity, ad Ablab. t. 2. p-449. vid. Petav. de Trin. iv. 9.
manner concerning the Word of God, that
He is simply from the Father. And if they
make a question of the time, let them say
what is to restrain God — for it is necessary
to prove their irreligion on the very ground on
which their scoff is made— let them tell us,
what is there to restrain God from being always
Father of the Son ; for that what is begotten
must be from its father is undeniable. More-
over, they will pass judgment on themselves
in attributing 3 such things to God, if, as they
questioned women on the subject of time,
so they inquire of the sun concerning its radi-
ance, and of the fountain concerning its issue.
They will find that these, though an offspring,
always exist with those things from which
they are. And if parents, such as these,
have in common with their children nature
and duration, why, if they suppose God in-
ferior to things that come to be+, do they not
openly say out their own irreligion? But if
they do not dare to say this openly, and the
Son is confessed to be, not from without, but
a natural offspring from the Father, and that
there is nothing which is a restraint to God
(for not as man is He, but more than the
sun, or rather the God of the sun), it follows
that the Word is from Him and is ever co-
existent with Him, through whom also the
Father caused that all things which were not
should be. That then the Son comes not of
nothing but is eternal and from the Father,
is certain even from the nature of the case ;
and the question of the heretics to parents
exposes their perverseness ; for they confess
the point of nature, and now have been put
to shame on the point of time.
28. As we said above, so now we repeat,
that the divine generation must not be com-
pared to the nature of men, nor the Son con-
sidered to be part of God, nor the generation
to imply any passion whatever; God is not
as man ; for men beget passibly, having a
transitive nature, which waits for periods by
reason of its weakness. But with God this
cannot be ; for He is not composed of parts,
but being impassible and simple. He is im-
passibly and indivisibly Father of the Son.
This again is strongly evidenced and proved
by divine Scripture. For the Word of God
is His Son, and the Son is the Father's Word
and Wisdom ; and Word and Wisdom is
neither creature nor part of Him whose Word
He is, nor an offspring passibly begotten.
Uniting then the two titles, Scripture speaks
3 [But see Or. iii. 65, note 2.]
4 S. Athanasius's doctrine is, that, God containing in Himself
all perfection, whatever is excellent in one created thing above
another, is tound in its perfection in Him. If then such generation
as radiance from light is more perfect than that of children from
parents, that belongs, and transcendently, to the All-perfect God.
I
I
DISCOURSE I.
325
of ' Son,' in order to herald the natural and
true offspring of His essence ; and, on the
other hand, that none may think of the Off-
spring humanly, while signifying His essence,
it also calls Him Word, Wisdom, and Radi-
anc(» ; to teach us that the generation was
impassible, and eternal, and worthy of Gods.
What affection then, or what part of the
Father is the Word and the Wisdom and the
Radiance? So much may be impressed even
on these men of folly; for as they asked
women concerning God's Son, so^ let them
inquire of men concerning the Word, and
they will find that the word which they put
forth is neither an affection of them nor a part
of their mind. But if such be the word of
men, who are passible and partitive, why
speculate they about passions and parts in the
instance of the immaterial and indivisible
God, that under pretence of reverence 7 they
may deny the true and natural generation of the
Son ? Enough was said above to shew that the
offspring from God is not an affection ; and
now it has been shewn in particular that the
Word is not begotten according to affection.
The same may be said of Wisdom ; God is
not as man ; nor must they here think humanly
of Him. For, whereas men are capable of
wisdom, God partakes in nothing, but is Him-
self the Father of His own Wisdom, of which
whoso partake are given the name of wise.
And this Wisdom too is not a passion, nor a part,
but an Offspring proper to the Father. Where-
fore He is ever Father, nor is the character
of Father adventitious to God, lest He seem
alterable ; for if it is good that He be Father,
5 This is a view familiar to tlie Fathers, viz. that in this consists
our Lord's Sonship, that He is the Word, or as S Augustine says,
Christum ideo Filium quia Verbum. Aug. £ji. 120. 11. Cf.
ae Deer. § 17. ' If I speak of Wisdom, I speak of His offspring ; '
Theoph. ad Autolye. i. 3. ' The Word, the genuine Son ol Mind ; '
Clem. Protrept. p. 58. Petavins discusses this subject accurately
with reference to the distinction between Divine Generation and
Divine Procession, de Trin. vii. 14.
6 Oral. iii. 67.
7 Heretics have frequently assigned reverence as the cause
of their opposition to the Church ; and if even Arius affected it,
the plea may be expected in any other. 'O stultos _et impios
metus,' says S. Hilary, ' et irrcligiosam de Deo sollicitudinem.'
de T'-in. iv. 6. It was still more commonly professed in regard to
the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation. Cf. Acta Archelai
[Routh. Rell. V. 169]. August, contr. Secjtnd. 9, contr. Faust.
xi. 3. As the Manichees denied our Lord a body, so the
Apollinarians denied Him a rational soul, still under pretence
of reverence, because, as they said, the soul was necessarily sin-
ful. Leontius makes this their main argument, 6 foO; aiuapTrjTiKds
etTTt. de Sect. iv. p. 507. vid. also Greg. Naz. Ep. loi. ad
Cledoii. p. 89; Athan. in A poll. i. 2. 14. Epiph. Ancor. jg. 80.
Athan., &c., call the ApoUinarian doctrine Manichean in con-
sequence, vid. in Apoll. ii. 8. 9. &c. Again, the Eranistes
in Theodoret, who advocates a similar doctrine, will not call
our Lord 7nan. Eranist. ii. p. 83. Eutyches, on the other
hand, would call our Lord man, but refused to admit His
human nature, and still with the same profession. Leon. Ep. 21.
I fin. 'Forbid it," he says at Constantinople, 'that I should
say that the Christ was of two natures, or should discuss the
nature, <^v<ji.oXoyilv, of iny God.' Concil. t. 2. p. 157 [Act.
pri-ma cone. Chalc. t. iv. looi ed. Col.] A modern argument for
Universal Restitution takes a like form ; ' Do not we shrink from
the notion of another's being sentenced to eternal punishment; and
are we more merciful than God?' vid. Matt. xvi. 22, 23.
but has not ever been Father, then good has
not ever been in Him.
29. But, observe, say they, God was always
a Maker, nor is the power of framing adven-
titious to Him; does it follow then, that,
because He is the Framer of all, therefore
His works also are eternal, and is it wicked
to say of them too, that they were not before
origination ? Senseless are these Arians ; for
what likeness is there between Son and work,
that they should parallel a father's with a
maker's function? How is it that, with that
difference between offspring and work, which
has been shewn, they remain so ill-instructed ?
Let it be repeated then, that a work is ex-
ternal to the nature, but a son is the proper
offspring of the essence ; it follows that
a work need not have been always, for the
workman frames it when he will ; but an off-
spring is not subject to will, but is proper to
the essence^. And a man may be and
may be called Maker, though the works are
not as yet ; but father he cannot be called,
nor can he be, unless a son exist. And if they
curiously inquire why God, though always
with the power to make, does not always
make (though this also be the presumption
of madmen, for ' who hath known the mind of
the Lord, or who hath been His Counsellor?'
or how 'shall the thing formed say to' the
potter, ' why didst thou make me thus 9 ? ' how-
ever, not to leave even a weak argument un-
noticed), they must be told, that although
God always had the power to make, yet the
things originated had not the power of being
eternal ^° For they are out of nothing, and
therefore were not before their origination ;
but things which were not before their origin-
ation, how could these coexist with the ever-
existing God? Wherefore God, looking to
what was good for them, then made them all
when He saw that, when originated, they were
able to abide. And as, though He was able,
even from the beginning in the time of Adam,
or Noah, or Moses, to send His own Word,
yet He sent Him not until the consummation
of the ages (for this He saw to be good
for the whole creation), so also things origin-
ated did He make when He would, and as
was good for them. But the Son, not being
8 Vid. OraX.. iii. § 59, &c. 9 Rom. xi. 3^ ; ib- ix. 20.
10 Athan. 's argument is as follows: that, as it is of the essence
of a son to be 'connatural' with the father, so is it of the essence
of a creature to be of ' nothing,' e j ovk ovtujv ; therefore, while it was
not impossible ' from the nature of the case,' lor Almighty God to
be always Father, it ^uas impossible for the same reason that He
should be always a Creator, vid. infr. § 58 : where he takes,
'They shall perish,' in the Psalm, not as a fact but as the defi-
nition of the nature of a creature. Also ii. § i, where he says,
' It is proper to creatures and works to have said of them, ef ou/c
oi'TOJi' and ovk r/r Trplv yevu-qO^.' vid. Cyril. Thcsaur. 9. p. 67.
Dial. ii. p. 460. on the question of being a Creator in posse, vid.
supra, Ep. Eus. 11 note 3.
Y 2
324
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
a work, but proper to the Father's offspring,
always is ; for, whereas the Father always is,
so what is proper to His essence must al-
ways be; and this is His Word and His Wisdom.
And that creatures should not be in existence,
does not disparage the Maker ; for He hath
the power of framing them, when He wills ;
but for the offspring not to be ever with
the Father, is a disparagement of the perfec-
tion of His essence. Wherefore His works
were framed, when He would, through His
Word ; but the Son is ever the proper offspring
of the Father's essence.
CHAPTER TX.
Objections continued.
Whether is the Unoriginate one or tw,o? Inconsistent
in Avians to use an unscriptural word; necessary to
define its meaning. Different senses of the word. If
it means ' without Father,' there is but One Unorigin-
ate ; if * without beginning or creation,' there are two.
Inconsistency of Asterius. * Unoriginate ' a title of
God, not in contrast with the Son, but with crea-
tures, as is 'Almighty,' or 'Lord of powers.' 'Father'
is the truer title, as not only Scriptural, but implying
a Son, and our adoption as sons.
30. These considerations encourage the
faithful, and distress the heretical, perceiving,
as they do, their heresy overthrown thereby.
Moreover, their further question, ' whether the
Unoriginate be one or two',' shews how false
are their views, how treacherous and full of
guile. Not for the Father's honour ask they
this, but for the dishonour of the Word. Ac-
cordingly, should any one, not aware of their
craft, answer, ' the Unoriginated is one,' forth-
with they spirt out their own venom, saying,
' Therefore the Son is among things originated,'
and well have we said, ' He was not before
His generation.' Thus they make any kind
of disturbance and confusion, provided they
can but separate the Son from the Father,
and reckon the Framer of all among His
I The word ayyevlv'irjTov was in the philosophical schools
synonymous with God;' hence by asking whether there were
two Unoriginates, the Arians implied that there were two Gods, if
Christ was God in the sense in which the Father was. Hence Athan.
retorts, (jidcrKOvre'S, ov \eyofi.ev &vo ayev-qTa, Ae'yov<ri fiiio fleous.
Orat. iii. 16, also ii. 38. Plato used kyivvTyrov of the Supreme
God [not so; he used ayeVijToi', see note 2 on de Deer. 28) ; the
Valentinians, Tertull. contr. Val. 7 ; and Basilides, Epiph.
Hcer, 31. 10. S.Clement uses it, see de Syn. 47, note 7. [The
earlier Arians apparently argued mainly, like Asterius, from
d-y£Vi|Tos (cl. Epiph. 64. 8), the later (/caivot, Epiph. Hier. 73. 19)
Anomceans rather from a.yivvy\TO%\ ; viz. that t\ ci.yevvr}(Tla is the
very ovcrLa. of God, not an attribute. So Aetius in Epiph. Hcer. 76.
S. Athanasius does not go into this question, but rather confines him-
self to the more popular form of it, viz. the Son is by His very_ name
not o.ye'i'rjTO!, but yeKrjTOS, but all yeiajTa are creatures ; which he
answers, as de Deer. § 28, by saying that Christianity had brought
in a new idea into theology, viz. the sacred doctrine of a true Son,
6/c Tiijs ouo-ias. This was what the Arians had originally denied,
iv TO a.yivvr{TOV ev 6e to vtt' avTOv aATjSdis, »cal ovk ex ttjs oiiaCas
avTov yeyovoi. Euseb. Nic. ap. Theod. //.£. i. 6. When they were
urged w/iai according to them was the middle idea to which the Son
answered, if they would not accept the Catholic, they would not
define but merely said, yeVcr);na, dAA' ovk a>s eV TaJi/ yevvrnii.dTUti'.
[See pp. 149, 169, and the reference there to LightfooUJ
works. Now first they may be convicted on
this score, that, while blaming the Nicene
Bishops for their use of phrases not in
Scripture, though these not injurious, but
subversive of their irreligion, they themselves
went off upon the same fault, that is, using
words not in Scripture % and those in con-
tumely of the Lord, knowing ' neither what they
say nor whereof they affirms.' For instance,
let them ask the Greeks, who have been their
instructors (for it is a word of their invention,
not Scripture), and when they have been in-
structed in its various significations, then they
will discover that they cannot even question
properly, on the subject which they have un-
dertaken. For they have led me to ascertain +
that by ' unoriginate ' is meant what has not yet
come to be, but is possible to be, as wood'
which is not yet become, but is capable of
becoming, a vessel ; and again what neither
has nor ever can come to be, as a triangle
quadrangular, and an even number odd. For
a triangle neither has nor ever can become
quadrangular ; nor has even ever, nor can ever,
become odd. Moreover, by ' unoriginate ' is
meant, what exists, but has not come into
being from any, nor having a father at all.
Further, Asterius, the unprincipled sophist,
the patron too of this heresy, has added in his
own treatise, that what is not made, but is
ever, is ' unoriginate s,' They ought then, when
they ask the question, to add in what sense
they take the word ' unoriginate,' and then the
parties questioned would be able to answer to
the point.
31. But if they still are satisfied with merely
asking, ' Is the Unoriginate one or two?' they
must be told first of all, as ill-educated men,
that many are such and nothing is such, many,
which are capable of origination, and nothing,
which is not capable, as has been said. But if
theyask according as Asterius ruled it, as if 'what
is not a work but was always ' were unoriginate,
then they must constantly be told that the
Son as well as the Father must in this sense
be called unoriginate. For He is neither in
the number of things originated, nor a work, but
has ever been with the Father, as has already
been shewn, in spite of their many variations
for the sole sake of speaking against the Lord,
2 De Deer. 18. 3 i Tim. i. 7. ■♦ De Deer. 28, note 4.
5 The two first senses here given answer to the two first men-
tioned, de Deer. § 28. and, as he there says, are plainly irrelevant.
The third in the de beer, which, as he there observes, is ambi-
guous and used for a sophistical purpose, is here divided into
third and fourth, answering to the two senses which alone are
assigned in the de Syn. § 46 [where see note 5], and on them
the question turns. This is an instance, of which many occur,
how Athan. used his former writings and worked over again his
former ground, and simplified or cleared what he had said. In
the de Deer, after 350, we have three senses oi a-yivtyrov, two irre-
levant and the third ambiguous ; here in Orat. i. (358), he divides
the third into two ; in the de Syn. (359), he rejects and omits the
two first, leaving the two last, which are the critical senses.
DISCOURSE I.
325
* He is of nothing ' and ' He was not before
His generation.' When then, after faiUng at
every turn, they betake themselves to the other
sense of the question, ' existing but not gene-
rated of any nor having a father,' we shall tell
them that the unoriginate in this sense is only
one, namely the Father ; and they will gain
nothing by their question ^. For to say that
God is in this sense Unoriginate, does not
shew that the Son is a thing originated, it being
evident from the above proofs that the Word
is such as He is who begat Him. Therefore
if God be unoriginate. His Image is not origin
ated, but an Offspring 7, which is His Word and
His Wisdom. For what likeness has the
originated to the unoriginate ? (one must not
weary of using repetition ;) for if they will have it
that the one is like the other, so that he who sees
the one beholds the other, they are like to say
that the Unoriginate is the image of creatures ;
the end of which is a confusion of the whole
subject, an equalling of things originated with
the Unoriginate, and a denial of the Unoriginate
by measuring Him with the works; and all to
reduce the Son into their number.
32. However, I suppose even they will be
unwilling to proceed to such lengths, if they
follow Asterius the sophist. For he, earnest
as he is in his advocacy of the Arian heresy,
and maintaining that the Unoriginate is one,
runs counter to them in saying, that the Wisdom
of God is unoriginate and without beginning
also. The following is a passage out of his
worker 'The Blessed Paul said not that he
preached Christ the power of God or the
wisdom of God, but, ^without the article,
'God's power and God's wisdom9;' thus
preaching that the proper power of God Him-
self, which is natural to Him and co-existent
with Him unoriginatedly, is something be-
sides.' And again, soon after : ' However,
His eternal power and wisdom, which truth
argues to be without beginning and unoriginate;
this must surely be one.' For though, mis-
understanding the Apostle's words, he con-
sidered that there were two wisdoms ; yet, by
speaking still of a wisdom coexistent with Him,
he declares that the Unoriginate is not simply
one, but that there is another Unoriginate with
Him, For what is coexistent, coexists not
vnth itself, but with another. If then they
agree with Asterius, let them never ask again,
' Is the Unoriginate one or two,' or they will
nave to contest the point with him ; if, on
the otlicr hand, they differ even from him,
6 These two senses of ayevvriTov unbegotten and unmade were
afterwards [but see notes on de Deer. 28J expressed b\ the dis-
tinction of vv and v, ayefvrjTov and aveVr/roi/. vid. Damasc. F. O.
i. 8. p. 135. and Le Quien's note.
7 § 20, note 5. 8 £)g Syn. § 18, inlr. ii. 37. 9 i Cor. i. 24.
let them not rely upon his treatise, lest,
' biting one another, they be consumed one of
another '°.' So much on the point of their
ignorance ; but who can say enough on their
crafty character? who but would justly hate
them while possessed by such a madness ? for
when they were no longer allowed to say ' out
of nothing ' and ' He was not before His
generation,' they hit upon this word ' unorigin
ate,' that, by saying among the simple that
the Son was ' originate,' they might imply the
very same phrases ' out of nothing,' and ' He
once was not ; ' for in such phrases things
originated and creatures are implied.
33. If they have confidence in their own
positions, they should stand to tliem, and not
change about so variously ^ ; but this they will
not, from an idea that success is easy, if they do
but shelter their heresy under colour of the word
' unoriginate. ' Yet after all, this term is not used
in contrast with the Son, clamour as they may,
but with things originated ; and the like may be
found in the words ' Almighty,' and ' Lord of
the Powers ^' For if we say that the Father
has power and mastery over all things by the
Word, and the Son rules the Father's kingdom,
and has the power of all, as His Word, and as
the Image of the Father, it is quite plain that
neither here is the Son reckoned among that
all, nor is God called Almighty and Lord with
reference to Him, but to those things which
through the Son come to be, and over which
He exercises power and mastery through the
Word. And therefore the Unoriginate is speci-
fied not by contrast to the Son, but to the
things which through the Son come to be. And
excellently: since God is not as things origin-
ated, but is their Creator and Framer through the
Son. And as the word ' Unoriginate ' is speci-
fied relatively to things originated, so the word
'Father' is indicative of the Son. And he
who names God Maker and Framer and Un-
originate, regards and apprehends things created
and made ; and he who calls God Father,
thereby conceives and contemplates the Son.
And hence one might marvel at the obstinacy
which is added to their irreligion, that, where-
as the term ' unoriginate ' has the aforesaid good
sense, and admits of being used religiously 3,
they, in their own heresy, bring it forth for the
dishonour of the Son, not having read that he
who honoureth the Son honoureth the Father,
■0 Gal. V. 15. I De Syn. 9, note 2.
2 The passage which follows is written with his de Deer, before
him. At first he but uses the same topics, but presently he in-
corporates into this Discourse an actual portion of his former work,
with only such alterations as an author commonly makes in tran-
scribing. This, which is not unfrequent with Athan., shews us the
care with which he made his doctrinal statements, though they
seem at first sight written off. It also accounts for the difiuseness
and repetition which .night be imputed to his composition, what
seems superfluous being often only the insertion of an extract from
a former work. 3 De Syn % n.
326
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
and he who dishonoureth the Son, dishonoureth
the Father 4. If they had any concern at all s
for reverent speaking and the honour due to
the Father, it became them rather, and this
were better and higher, to acknowledge and
call God Father, than to give Him this name.
For, in calling God unoriginate, they are, as I
said before, calling Him from His works, and
as Maker only and Framer, supposing that
hence they may signify that the Word is a work
after their own pleasure. But that he who
calls God Father, signifies Him from the Son
being well aware that if there be a Son, of
necessity through that Son all things originate
were created. And they, when they call Him
Unoriginate, name Him only from His works,
and know not the Son any more than the
Greeks ; but he who calls God Father, names
Him from the Word ; and knowing the Word,
he acknowledges Him to be Framer of all, and
understands that through Him all things have
been made.
34. Therefore it is more pious and more
accurate to signify God from the Son and call
Him Father, than to name Him from His works
only and call Him Unoriginate ^. For the latter
title, as I have said, does nothing more than
signify all the works, individually and collec-
tively, which have come to be at the will of
God through the Word ; but the title Father
has its significance and its bearing only from the
Son. And, whereas the Word surpasses things
originated, by so much and more doth call-
ing God Father surpass the calling Him Un-
originate. For the latter is unscriptural and
suspicious, because it has various senses ; so
that, when a man is asked concerning it, his
mind is carried about 10 many ideas ; but the
word Father is simple and scriptural, and
moie accurate, and only implies the Son. And
' Unoriginate ' is a word of the Greeks, who
know not the Son ; but ' Father ' has been ac-
knowledged and vouchsafed by our Lord.
For He, knowing Himself whose Son He was,
said, ' I am in the Father, and the Father is in
Me ; ' and, ' He that hath seen Me, hath seen
the Father,' and ' I and the Father are One ^ ; '
but nowhere is He found to call the Father
Unoriginate. Moreover, when He teaches us
to pray, He says not, ' When ye pray, say, O
4 John V. 23.
5 Here he begins a close transcript of the de Deer. § 30, the
'2st sentence, however, of the paragraph being an addition.
° For analogous arguments against the word avfM'TjTov, see
Basil, conir. Eunom. i. 5. p. 215. Greg. Na2. Oral. 37. 23. Epiph.
Har. 76. p. 5141. Greg. Nyss. contr. Eunojii. vi. p. jg2, \'c.
*^yr\\. Vial. 11. Pseudo-Basil, contr. Eunom. iv. p. 283.
7 John XIV. 11 ; xiv. 9 ; x 30. These three texts are found to-
gether frequently in Athan. particularly in Orat. iii. where he
considers the doctrines of the ' Image' and the 7T.p.x"ip1<T.s. vid.
liidex of Texts, also Epiph. Hc^r. 64. 9. Basil. Bexaem. ix. fin.
(^yr. rhes. xii. p. m. [add in S. Joan. 168, 847] Potam. Ep.
ap. Dacher. t. 3. p. 299. Hil. Trin. vii. 41. et supr.
God Unoriginate,' but rather, 'When ye pray,
say, Our Father, which art in heaven ^.' And it
was His will that the Summary? of our faith
should have the same bearing, in bidding us be
baptized, not into the name of Unoriginate and
originate, nor into the name of Creator and
creature, but into the Name of Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost. For with such an initiation
we too, being numbered among works, are made
sons, and using the name of the Father, acknow-
ledge from that name the Word also in the
Father Himself ^°. A vain thing then is their
argument about the term 'Unoriginate,' as is
now proved, and nothing more than a fantasy.
CHAPTER X.
Objections continued.
How the Word has free will, yet without beuig alterable.
He is unalterable because the Image of the Father,
proved from texts.
35. As to their question whether the Word
is alterable^, it is superfluous to examine it;
it is enough simply to write down what they
say, and so to shew its daring irreligion. How
they trifle, appears from the following ques-
tions : — 'Has He free will, or has He not?
is He good from choice according to free will,
and can He, if He will, alter, being of an alter-
able nature ? or, as wood or stone, has He
not His choice free to be moved and incline
hither and thither ? ' It is but agreeable to
their heresy thus to speak and think; for, when
once they have framed to themselves a God
out of nothing and a created Son, of course
they also adopt such terms, as being suitable
to a creature. However, when in their contro-
versies with Churchmen they hear from them
of the real and only Word of the Father, and
yet venture thus to speak of Him, does not
their doctrine then become the most loathsome
that can be found? is it not enough to dis-
tract a man on mere hearing, though unable
to reply, and to make him stop his ears, from
astonishment at the novelty of what he hears
them say, which even to mention is to blas-
pheme? For if the Word be alterable and
changing, where will He stay, and what will
be the end of His development? how shall
the alterable possibly be like the Unalterable ?
How should he who has seen the alterable,
be considered to have seen the Unalterable ?
At what state must He arrive, for us to be able
to behold in Him the Father ? for it is plain
8 Luke xi. 2. 9 De Syti. 28, note 5.
=" Here ends the extract from the de Decretis. The sentence
following is added as a close.
' TpeTTTos, i.e. not "changeable' but of a moral nature capable
of improvement. Arius maintained this in the strongest terms
at starting. ' On being asked whether the Word of God is capable
of altering as the devil altered, they scrupled not to say, " Yea, He
is capable."' Alex. ap. Socr. i. 6. p. 11.
DISCOURSE I.
327
that not at all times shall we see tlie Father in
the Son, because the Son is ever altering, and
is of changing nature. For the Father is un-
alterable and unchangeable, and is always in
the same state and the same ; but if, as they
hold, the Son is alterable, and not always the
same, but of an ever-changing nature, how can
such a one be the Father's Image, not having
the likeness of His unalterableness^? how can
He be really in the Father, if His purpose
is indeterminate ? Nay, perhaps, as being
alterable, and advancing daily, He is not
perfect yet. But away with such madness of
the Arians, and let the truth shine out, and
shew that they are foolish. For must not
He be perfect who is equal to God ? and
must not He be unalterable, who is one
with the Father, and His Son proper to His
essence? and the Father's essence being
unalterable, unalterable must be also the
proper Offspring from it. And if they slander-
ously impute alteration to the Word, let them
learn how much their own reason is in peril ;
for from the fruit is the tree known. For
this is why he who hath seen the Son hath
seen the Father, and why the knowledge of
the Son is knowledge of the Father.
2,6. Therefore the Image of the unalterable
God must be unchangeable ; for ' Jesus Christ
is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever 3.'
And David in the Psalm says of Him, ' Thou,
Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation
of the earth, and the heavens are the work
of Thine hands. They shall perish, but Thou
remainest ; and they all shall wax old as doth
a garment. And as a vesture shalt Thou fold
them up, and they shall be changed, but
Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not
faiH.' And the Lord Himself says of Himself
through the Prophet, ' See now that I, even
I am He,' and ' I change nots.' It may be
said indeed that what is here signified relates
to the Father ; yet it suits the Son also to
say this, specially because, when made man,
He manifests His own identity and unalter-
ableness to such as suppose that by reason
of the flesh He is changed and become other
than He was. More trustworthy are the
saints, or rather the Lord, than the pervers-
ity of the irreligious. For Scripture, as in
the above-cited passage of the Psalter, sig-
nifying under the name of heaven and earth,
that the nature of all things originate and
created is alterable and changeable, yet ex-
cepting the Son from these, shews us thereby
that He is no wise a thing originate ; nay
teaches that He changes everything else, and
is Himself not changed, in saying, ' Thou
- 6upr. s 22. imt.
* Ps. cli. 26—28.
3 Heb xiii. 8.
5 Deut. xxxii. 39 ; Mai. iii. 6.
art the same, and Thy years shall not fail^.'
And with reason ; for things originate, being
from nothing?, and not being before their
origination, because, in truth, they come to
be after not being, have a nature which is
changeable; but the Son, being from the
Father, and proper to His essence, is un-
changeable and unalterable as the Father
Himself. For it were sin to say that from
that essence which is unalterable was be-
gotten an alterable word and a changeable
wisdom. For how is He longer the Word,
if He be alterable? or can that be Wisdom
which is changeable ? unless perhaps, as acci-
dent in essence^, so they would have it, viz.
as in any particular essence, a certain grace
and habit of virtue exists accidentally, which
is called Word and Son and Wisdom, and
admits of being taken from it and added to it.
For they have often expressed this sentiment,
but it is not the faith of Christians ; as not
declaring that He is truly Word and Son of
God, or that the wisdom intended is true
Wisdom. For what alters and changes, and
has no stay in one and the same condition,
how can that be true ? whereas the Lord says,
'I am the Truth9.' If then the Lord Himself
speaks thus concerning Himself, and declares
His unalterableness, and the Saints have
learned and testify this, nay and our notions
of God acknowledge it as religious, whence
did these men of irreligion draw this novelty?
From their heart as from a seat of corrup-
tion did they vomit it forth ".
CHAPTER XL
Texts Explained ; and First, Phil. ii.
9, 10.
Various texts which are alleged against the Catholic
doctrine : e.g. Phil. ii. 9, 10. Whether the words
' Wherefore God hath highly exalted ' prove moral
probation and advancement. Argued against, first,
from the force of the word ' Son ; ' which is incon-
sistent with such an interpretation. Next, the pas-
sage examined. Ecclesiastical sense of ' highly ex-
alted, ' and ' gave, ' and ' wherefore ; ' viz. as being
spoken with reference to our Lord's manhood.
Secondary sense; viz, as implying the Word's 'exal-
tation ' through the resurrection in the same sense in
which Scripture speaks of His descent in the In-
carnation ; how the phrase does not derogate from
the nature of the Word.
37. But since they allege the divine oracles
and force on them a misinterpretation, ac-
cording to their private sense % it becomes
necessary to meet them just so far as to vin-
dicate these passages, and to shew that they
6 Heb. i. IS. 7 § 29, note. 8 jV/r. Di'J. 2r, note 9.
9 John xiv. 6. '° De Syn. § 16 fin.
I Vid. de Syn. 4, note 6. and cf. Tertull. de Prascr. 19. Rufinus
H . E. ii. 9. Vincent. Coiiitn. 2. Hippolytus has a passage very
much to the same purpose, contr. Noet. q fin.
328
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
bear an orthodox sense, and that our oppo-
nents are in error. They say then, that the
Apostle writes, ' Wherefore God also hath
highly exalted Him, and given Him a Name
which is above every name ; that in the Name
of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in
heaven and things in earth and things under
the earth ^:' and David, 'Wherefore God,
even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the
oil of gladness above Thy fellows 3.' Then
they urge, as something acute : ' If He was
exalted and received grace, on a 'wherefore,'
and on a ' wherefore ' He was anointed, He
received a reward of His purpose ; but hav-
ing acted from purpose. He is altogether of
an alterable nature.' This is what Eusebius '^
and Arius have dared to say, nay to write ;
while their partizans do not shrink from con-
versing about it in full market-place, not seeing
how mad an argument they use. For if He
received what He had as a reward of His
purpose, and would not have had it, unless
He had needed it, and had His work to
shew for it, then having gained it from virtue
and promotion, with reason had He ' there-
fore ' been called Son and God, without being
very Son. For what is from another by nature,
is a real offspring, as Isaac was to Abraham,
and Joseph to Jacob, and the radiance to the
sun ; but the so-called sons from virtue and
grace, have but in place of nature a grace by
acquisition, and are something else besides s
the gift itself; as the men who have re-
ceived the Spirit by participation, concerning
whom Scripture saith, *I begat and exalted
children, and they rebelled against Me^.'
And of course, since they were not sons by
nature, therefore, when they altered, the Spirit
was taken away and they were disinherited ;
and again on their repentance that God who
thus at the beginning gave them grace, will
receive them, and give hght, and call them
sons again.
38. But if they say this of the Saviour also, it
follows that He is neither very God nor very
Son, nor like the Father, nor in any wise has
God for a Father of His being according to
essence, but of the mere grace given to Him,
and for a Creator of His being according
to essence, after the similitude of all others.
And being such, as they maintain, it will be
manifest further that He had not the name
' Son ' from the first, if so be it was the prize
of works done and of that very same advance
which He made when He became man, and
took the form of the servant ; but then, when,
after becoming 'obedient unto death,' He
= Phil. ii. 9, 10. 3 Ps. xlv. 7.
4 Of Nicomedia. vid. Theod. //. R. i. 5.
■' § 39 end. 6 Js. j. 2. LXX.
was, as the text says, ' highly ftxalted,' and
received that ' Name ' as a grace, ' that in the
Name of Jesus every knee should bow 7.'
What then was before this, if then He was
exalted, and then began to be worshipped,
and then was called Son, when He became
man? For He seems Himself not to have
promoted the flesh at all, but rather to have
been Himself promoted through it, if, ac-
cording to their perverseness. He was then
exalted and called Son, when He became
man. What then was before this ? One must
urge the question on them again, to make it
understood what their irreligious doctrine re-
sults in 8. For if the Lord be God, Son,
Word, yet was not all these before He became
man, either He was something else beside
these, and afterwards became partaker of them
for His virtue's sake, as we have said ; or they
must adopt the alternative (may it return upon
their heads !) that He was not before that time,
but is wholly man by nature and nothing
more. But this is no sentiment of the Church,
but of the Samosatene and of the present Jews.
Why then, if they think as Jews, are they not
circumcised with them too, instead of pre-
tending Christianity, while they are its foes ?
For if He was not, or was indeed, but after-
wards was promoted, how were all things made
by Him, or how in Him, were He not perfect,
did the Father delight 9? And He, on the
other hand, if now promoted, how did He
before rejoice in the presence of the Father ?
And, if He received His worship after dying,
how is Abraham seen to worship Him in the
tent '°, and Moses in the bush ? and, as Daniel
saw, myriads of myriads, and thousands of
thousands were ministering unto Him ? And
if, as they say. He had His promotion now,
how did the Son Himself make mention of
that His glory before and above the world,
when He said, ' Glorify Thou Me, O Father,
with the glory which I had with Thee before
the world was ".' If, as they say. He was then
exalted, how did He before that ' bow the
heavens and come down ;' and again, ' The
Highest gave His thunder'^?' Therefore, if,
even before the world was made, the Son had
7 Phil. ii. 8.
8 The Arians perhaps more than other heretics were remark-
able for bringing objections against the received view, ratherthan
forming a consistent theory ot their own Indeed the very vigour
and success of their assault upon the truth lay in its being a mere
assault, not a positive and substantive teaching. They therefore,
even more than others, might fairly be urged on to the_ conse-
quences of their positions. Now the text in question, as it must
be interpreted if it is to serve as an objection, was an objection
also to the received doctrine of the Arians. They considered that
our Lord was above and before all creatures from the first, and
their Creator; how then could He be exalted above all? They
surely, as much as Catholics, were obliged to explain it of our
Lord's manhood. They could not then use it as a weapon against
the Church, until they took the ground of Paul of Samosata.
9 Prov. viii. 30. '° De Syn. 27 (15). '' John xvii. 5.
'2 Ps. xviii. 9, 13
DISCOURSE I.
329
that glory, and was Lord of glory and the
Highest, and descended from heaven, and is
ever to be worshipped, it follows that He had
not promotion from His descent, but rather
Himself promoted the things which needed
promotion ; and if He descended to effect
their promotion, therefore He did not receive
in reward the name of the Son and God, but
ratlier He Himself has made us sons of the
Father, and deifed men by becoming Him-
self man.
39. Therefore He was not man, and then
became God, but He was God, and then
became man, and that to deify us^. Since,
if when He became man, only then He was
called Son and God, but before He became
man, God called the ancient people sons,
and made Moses a god of Pharaoh (and
Scripture says of many, ' God standeth in
the congregation of Gods ^ '), it is plain
that He is called Son and God later than
they. How then are all things through Him,
and He before all ? or how is He ' first-born of
the whole creation 3,' if He has others before
Him who are called sons and gods ? And how
is it that those first partakers * do not partake
of the Word ? This opinion is not true ; it is
a device of our present Judaizers. For how
in that case can any at all know God as
their Father ? for adoption there could not be
apart from the real Son, who says, ' No one
knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son will reveal Him '^\' And
how can there be deifying apart from the
Word and before Him? yet, jaith He to their
brethren the Jews, 'If He called them gods,
unto whom the Word of God came s.' And if
all that are called sons and gods, whether in
earth or in heaven, were adopted and deified
through the Word, and the Son Himself is the
Word, it is plain that through Him are they all,
and He Himself before all, or rather He Him-
self only is very Son ^, and He alone is very
God from the very God, not receiving these
prerogatives as a reward for His virtue, nor
being another beside them, but being all
these by nature and according to essence.
For He is Offspring of the Father's essence,
so that one cannot doubt that after the resem-
* [De Incar. 54, and note]
a Ps. Ixxxii. I ; Heb. LXX. 3 Col. i. 15. vid. infr. ii. § 62.
4 In this passage Athan. considers that the particif)ation of
the Word is deification, as communion with the Son is adoption :
also that the old Saints, inasmuch as they are called 'gods' and
'sons,' did partake of the Divine Word and Son, or in other words
were gifted with the Spirit. He asserts the same doctrine very
strongly in Orat. iv. § 22. On the other hand, infr. 47, he says
expressly that Christ received the Spirit in Baptisni 'that He
might give it to man.' There is no real contradiction in such
statements ; what was given in one way under the Law, was
given in another and fuller under the Gospel.
4» Matt. xi. 27.
5 John X. 35. * p. 157, note 6.
blance of the unalterable Father, the Word
also is unalterable.
40. Hitherto we have met their irrational
conceits with the true conceptions ' implied in
the Word ' Son,' as the Lord Himself has
given us. But it will be well next to cite
the divine oracles, that the unalterableness of
the Son and His unchangeable nature, which is
the Father's, as well as their perverseness, may
be still more fully proved. The Apostle then,
writing to the Philippians, says, ' Have this
mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus ;
who, being in the form of God, thought it not
a prize to be equal with God ; but emptied
Himself, taking the form of a servant, be-
ing made in the likeness of men. And, be-
ing found in fashion as a man. He humbled
Himself, becoming obedient to death, even
the death of the cross. Wherefore God also
highly exalted Him, and gave Him a Name
which is above every name ; that in the
Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of
things in heaven, and things in earth, and
things under thg earth, and that every tongue
should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father^.' Can any-
thing be plainer and more express than
this ? He was not from a lower state pro-
moted ; but rather, existing as God, He took
the form of a servant, and in taking it, was not
promoted but humbled Himself. Where then
is there here any reward of virtue, or what
advancement and promotion in humiliation?
For if, being God, He became man, and
descending from on high He is still said to be
exalted, where is He exalted, being God ? this
withal being plain, that, since God is highest
of all. His Word must necessarily be highest
also. Where then could He be exalted higher,
who is in the Father and like the Father in all
things3? Therefore He is beyond the need of any
addition ; nor is such as the Arians think Him.
For though the Word has descended in order to
be exalted, and so it is written, yet what need
was there that He should humble Himself, as
if to seek that which He had already? And
what grace did He receive who is the Giver of
grace '^? or how did He receive that Name
for worship, who is always worshipped by His
Name ? Nay, certainly before He became man,
the sacred writers invoke Him, ' Save me, O
God, for Thy Name's sake s ; ' and again,
' Some put their trust in chariots, and some in
horses, but we will remember the Name of the
Lord our God^.' And while He was wor-
' rais evvoiots xpioju.ei'oi, Trpbs ras eTrtvoi'as amjynjira/xci'. cfl
ov\i. eTTtVota, jrapai/oio 6 [kaKKov, i&c. Basil, cojitr. Eunom. i. 6.
init. _ » Phil ii. 5— n-
3 ofxOLO? Kara Trai/ra, de Syn. 21 , note IO«
4 p. 162, note 3. 5 Ps. liv. i. 6 lb. xx. 7.
330
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
shipped by the Patriarchs, concerning the
Angels it is written, ' Let all the Angels of God
worship Him 7.'
41. And if, as David says in the 71st Psalm,
' His Name remaineth before the sun, and be-
fore the moon, from one generation to another^,'
how did He receive what He had always, even
before He now received it ? or how is He
exalted, being before His exaltation the Most
High? or how did He receive the right of
being worshipped, who before He now re-
ceived it, was ever worshipped? It is not a
dark saying but a divine mystery 9. ' In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God ;' but
for our sakes afterwards the ' Word was
made flesh '°.' And the term in question,
' highly exalted,' does not signify that the es-
sence of the Word was exalted, for He was ever
and is ' equal to God %' but the exaltation is of
the manhood. Accordingly this is not said
before the Word became flesh ; that it might
be plain that ' humbled ' and ' exalted ' are
spoken of His human nature ; for where there
is humble estate, there too may be exaltation ;
and if because of His taking flesh ' humbled '
is written, it is clear that ' highly exalted ' is
also said because of it. For of this was man's
nature in want, because of the humble estate
of the flesh and of death. Since then the
Word, being the Image of the Father and im-
mortal, took the form of the servant, and as man
underwent for us death in His flesh, that there-
by He might offer Himself for us through
death to the Father; therefore also, as man.
He is said because of us and for us to be
highly exalted, that as by His death we all died
in Christ, so again in the Christ Himself we
might be highly exalted, being raised from the
dead, and ascending into heaven, ' whither the
forerunner Jesus is for us entered, not into the
figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now
to appear in the presence of God for us^.' But
if now for us the Christ is entered into heaven
itself, though He was even before and always
Lord and Framer of the heavens, for us there-
fore is that present exaltation written. And as
He Himself, who sanctifies all, says also that
He sanctifies Himself to the Father for our
sakes, not that the Word may become holy,
but that He Himself may in Himself sanctify
7 Heb. i. 6. 8 Ps. Ixxii. 17, 5, LXX.
9 Scripture is full of mysteries, but they are mysteries oi /act.
not of words. Its dark sayings or aenigmata are such, because in
:he nature of things they cannot be expressed clearly. Hence
contrariwise, Orat ii. g 77 fin. he calls Prov. viii. 22. an enigma,
with an allusion to Prov. i. 6. Sept. In like manner S.Ambrose
says. Mare est scriptura divina, habens in se sensus profundos,
et altitudinem propheticorum cenigtttatunt, Ac. Ep. ii. 3. What
is commonly called ' explaining away ' Scripture, is this trans-
ference of the obscurity from the subject to the words used.
»o John i. I, 14. ' Phil. ii. 6. » Heb. vi. 20; iz. 24.
all of us, in like manner we must take the pre-
sent phrase, ' He highly exalted Him,' not that
He Himself should be exalted, for He is the
highest, but that He may become righteousness
for us 3, and we may be exalted in Him, and
that we may enter the gates of heaven, which
He has also opened for us, the forerunners say-
ing, ' Lift up your gates, O ye rulers, and be
ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the King
of Glory shall come in +.' For here also not on
Him were shut the gates, as being Lord and
Maker of all, but because of us is this too
written, to whom the door of paradise was
shut. And therefore in a human relation, be-
cause of the flesh which He bore, it is said of
Him, ' Lift up your gates,' and ' shall come
in,' as if a man were entering ; but in a divine
relation on the other hand it is said of Him,
since 'the Word was God,' that He is the
' Lord ' and the * King of Glory.' Such our
exaltation the Spirit foreannounced in the
eighty-ninth Psalm, saying, ' And in Thy right-
eousness shall they be exalted, for Thou art
the glory of their strength s.' And if the Son
be Righteousness, then He is not exalted as
being Himself in need, but it is we who are
exalted in that Righteousness, which is He ^.
42. And so too the words 'gave Him' are not
written because of the Word Himself; for even
before He became man He was worshipped, as
we have said, by the Angels and the whole
creation in virtue of being proper to the Father ;
but because of us and for us this too is written
of Him. For as Christ died and was exalted
as man, so, as man, is He said to take what,
as God, He ever had, that even such a
grant of grace might reach to us. For the
Word was not impaired in receiving a body, that
He should seek to receive a grace, but rather
He deified that which He put on, and more
than that, 'gave' it graciously to the race of
man. For as He was ever worshipped as being
the Word and existing in the form of God, so
being what He ever was, though become man
and called Jesus, He none the less has the
whole creation under foot, and bending their
knees to Him in this Name, and confessing
that the Word's becoming flesh, and under-
going death in flesh, has not happened against
the glory of His Godhead, but ' to the glory
of God the Father.' For it is the Father's
glory that man, made and then lost, should
3 When Scripture says that our Lord was exalted, it means
in that sense in which He could be exalted; just as, in saying
that a man walks or eats, we speak of him not as a spirit, but
as in that system of things to which the ideas of walking and
eating belong. Exaltation is not a word which can belong to
God ; it is unmeaning, and therefore is not applied to Him in the
text in question. Thus, e.g. S. Ambrose: ' LTbi humiliatus, ibi
obediens. Ex eo enim nascitur obedientia, ex quo humilitas,
et in eo desinit,' &c. Ap. Dav. alt. n. 39. 4 Ps. xxiv. 7.
5 Ps. Ixxxix. 17, 18, LXX. 6 I Cor. i. 30.
DISCOURSE I.
331
be found again ; and, when dead, that he
should be made aUve, and should become
God's temple. For whereas the powers in
heaven, both Angels and Archangels, were
ever worshipping the Lord, as they are now
worshipping Him in the Name of Jesus, this
is our grace and high exaltation, that even
when He became man, the Son of God is
worshipped, and the heavenly powers will not
be astonished at seeing all of us, who are of one
body with Him 7, introduced into their realms.
And this had not been, unless He who existed
in the form of God had taken on Him a ser-
vant's form, and had humbled Himself, yield-
ing His body to come unto death.
43. Behold then what men considered the
foolishness of God because of the Cross, has
become of all things most honoured. For our
resurrection is stored up in it ; and no longer
Israel alone, but henceforth all the nations, as
the Prophet hath foretold, leave their idols and
acknowledge the true God, the Father of the
Christ. And the illusion of demons is come
to nought, and He only who is really God is
worshipped in the Name of our Lord Jesus
Christ^. For the fact that the Lord, even when
come in human body and called Jesus, was
worshipped and believed to be God's Son,
and that through Him the Father was known,
shows, as has been said, that not the Word,
considered as the Word, received this so great
grace, but we. For because of our relation-
ship to His Body we too have become God's
temple, and in consequence are made God's
sons, so that even in us the Lord is now
worshipped, and beholders report, as the
Apostle says, that God is in them of a truths.
As also John says in the Gospel, 'As many
as received Him, to them gave He power to
become children of God^°;' and in his Epistle
he writes, ' By this we know that He abideth
in us by His Spirit which He hath given us".'
And this too is an evidence of His goodness
.uwards us that, while we were exalted be-
cause that the Highest Lord is in us, and
on our account grace was given to Him, because
that the Lord who supplies the grace has be-
come a man like us. He on the other hand,
the Saviour, humbled Himself in taking ' our
body of humiliation',' and took a servant's
7 Infr. § 43. _ ^ » [De /near. §§ 46, 51, &c.]
9 oi/Tio; iv vfiLv 6 9edi. i Cor. xiv. 25. Athan. interprets «>' tn
not afttong; as also in i John iii. 24, just afterwards. Vid. kv
e/xoi. Gal. i. 24. ei/xos iiti-Cov, Luke xvii. 21, ecrKrivuxrev iv rifjilv,
John i. 14, on which text Hooker says, ' It pleased not the Word
or Wisdom of God to take to itself some one person among men,
for then should that one have been advanced which was assumed
and no more, but Wi'^dora, to the end she might save many, biiilt
her house of that Nature which is common unto all ; she made not
this or that man her habitation, but dwelt in us.' Ecc/. Pol. v. 52.
§ 3 S. Basil in his proor of the divinity of the Holy Spirit has
a somewhat similar passage to the text, de Sp. S. c. 24.
'° John i. 12. '' I John iii. 24. i Phil. iii. 21.
form, putting on that flesh which was enslaved to
sin^. And He indeed has gained nothing from
us for His own promotion : for the Word
of God is without want and full ; but rather
we were promoted from Him ; for He is
the ' Light, which lighteneth every man,
coming into the worlds.' And in vain do
the Arians lay stress upon the conjunction
• wherefore,' because Paul has said, ' Wherefore
hath God highly exalted Him.' For in saying
this he did not imply any prize of virtue,
nor promotion from advance +, but the cause
why the exaltation was bestowed upon us.
And what is this but that He who existed
in form of God, the Son of a noble 5 Father,
humbled Himself and became a servant instead
of us and in our behalf? For if the Lord had
not become man, we had not been redeemed
from sins, not raised from the dead, but
remaining dead under the earth ; not exalted
into heaven, but lying in Hades. Because
of us then and in our behalf are the words,
'highly exalted' and 'given.'
44. This then I consider the sense of this
passage, and that, a very ecclesiastical sense^.
* It was usual to say against the Apollinarians, that, unless
our Lord took on Him our nature, as it is. He had not purified
and changed it, as it is, but another nature ; ' The Lord came not
to save Adam as free from sin, that He should become like unto
him ; but as, in the net of sin and now fallen, that God's mercy
might raise him up with Christ.' Leont. contr. Nestor. &c. ii.
p. 996. Accordingly, Athan. says elsewhere, ' Had not sinless-
ness appeared [cf. Rom. viii. 3, 7re'n.i//a5] " in the nature which had
sinned," how was sin condemned in the flesh?' in Apoll. ii. 6.
' It was necessary for our salvation,' says S. Cyril, ' that the Word
of God should become man, that human flesh "subject to cor-
ruption " and "sick with the lust of pleasures," He might make
His own ; and, " whereas He is life and lifegiving," He might
"destroy the corruption," &c For by this means, might sin in
our flesh become dead.' Ep. ad Success, i. p. 138. And S. Leo,
' Non alterius naturae erat ejus caro quam nostra, nee alio illi quam
casteris hominibus anima est inspirata principio, quae excelleret,
non diversitate generis, sed sublimitate virtutis.' Ep. 35 fin. vid.
also Ep. 28. 3. Ep. 31. 2. Ep. 165. 9. Serm. 22. 2. and 25. 5. It
may be asked whether this doctrine does not interfere with that of
the immaculate conception [i.e. that Christ was conceived sinless] ;
but that miracle was wrought in order that our Lord might not be
born in original sin, and does not affect, or rather includes, His
taking flesh of the substance of the Virgin, i.e. of a fallen nature.
If indeed sin were 'of the substance' of our fallen nature, as some
heretics have said, then He could not have taken our nature
without partaking our sinfulness ; but if sin be, as it is, a fault
of the luilL then the Divine Power of the Word could sanctfy the
human will, and keep it from swerving in the direction of evil.
Hence 'We say not that Christ by the felicity of a flesh sepa-
rated from sense could not feel the desire of sin, but that by
perfection of virtue, and by a flesh not begotten through con-
cupiscence of the flesh. He had not the desire of sin ;' Aug.
Op. Iinpcrf. iv. 48. On the other hand, S. Athanasius expressly
calls It Manichean doctrine to consider ttji/ ^vcriv of the flesh
auapTiW, /cal ou rrjv Trpa^iv. contr. Apoll. i. 12 fin. or <^v<Ti.KT}y
eivat Ty]v afxapriav. ibid. i. 14 fin. His argument in the next ch. is
on the ground that all natures are from God, but God made man
upright nor is the author of evil (vid. also Vit. Anton. 20) :_' not as
if,' he says, ' the devil wrought in man a nature (God forbid !) for
of a nature the evil cannot be maker (Srjiaioupybs) as is the impiety
of the Manichees, but he wrought a bias of nature by transgres-
sion, and ' so death reigned over all men.' Wherefore, saith he,
' the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil ; ' what
works? that nature, which God made sinless, and the devil biassed
to the transgression of God's command and the finding out of sin
which is death, did God the Word raise again, so as to be secure
from the devil's bias and the finding out of sin. And therefore the
Lord said, "The prince of this world Cometh and findeth nothing
in Me." ' vid. also § 19. Ibid. ii. 6. he speaks of the devil having
'introduced the law of sin.' vid. also \ 9.
3 John i. 9. 4 TrpoKOTnij? 'internal advance,' Luke li. 5?.
5 eu'-yefoOs. ^ £(CKAr)(ria(rTiicbs, vid. Scrap, iv. 15. contr.
Gent. 6. 7. 33.
332
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
However, there is another way in which one
might remark upon it, giving the same sense
in a parallel way ; viz. that, though it does
not speak of the exaltation of the Word
Himself, so far as He is Word? (for He is,
as was just now said, most high and like His
Father), yet by reason of His becoming man
it indicates His resurrection from the dead.
For after saying, 'He hath humbled Himself
even unto death,' He immediately added,
* Wherefore He hath highly exalted Him ; '
wishing to shew, that, although as man He
is said to have died, yet, as being Life, He
was exalted on the resurrection ; for ' He who
descended, is the same also who rose again ^.'
He descended in body, and He rose again
because He was God Himself in the body.
And this again is the reason why according
to this meaning he brought in the conjunction
' Wherefore ; ' not as a reward of virtue nor
of advancement, but to signify the cause why
the resurrection took place ; and why, while
all other men from Adam down to this time
have died and remained dead, He only rose
in integrity from the dead. The cause is this,
which He Himself has already taught us, that,
being God, He has become man. For all
other men, being merely born of Adam, died,
and death reigned over them ; but He, the
Second Man, is from heaven, for ' the Word
was made flesh?,' and this Man is said to be
from heaven and heavenly^", because the
Word descended from heaven ; wherefore He
was not held under death. For though He
humbled Himself, yielding His own Body to
come unto death, in that, it was capable of
death", yet He was highly exalted from earth,
because He was God's Son in a body. Ac-
cordingly what is here said, ' Wherefore God
also hath highly exalted Him,' answers to
Peter's words in the Acts, * Whom God
raised up, having loosed the bonds of death,
because it was not possible that He should be
holden of it".' For as Paul has written, 'Since
being in form of God He became man, and
7 Orat. ii. § 8. 8 Eph. iv. lo, but a.va.tna.'i for di/ajSas.
9 John i. 14. _ _ 10 In Apoll. i. 2.
" It was a point in controversy with the extreme Monophy-
sites, that is, the Eiitychians, whether our Lord's body was
naturally subject to death, the Catholics maintaining the affirm-
ative, as Athanasius here. Eutyches asserted that our Lord had
not a human nature, by which he meant among other things that
His manhood was not subject to the laws of a body, but so far as
He submitted to them. He did so by an act of will in each par-
ticular case ; and this, lest it should seem that He was moved
by the na3-t\ against His will a.Kov<riia% ; and consequently that
His manhood was not subject to death. But the Catholics main-
tained that He had voluntarily placed Himself under those laws,
and died 7taturally, vid. Athan. contr. Apol. i. 17, and that after
the resurrection His body became incorruptible, not according to
nature, but by grace, vid. Leont. de Sect. x. p. 530. Anast. Hodeg.
C. 23. To express their doctrine of the, V7repif)ue's of our Lord's
manhood the Eutychians made use of the Catholic expression
'ut voluit.' vid. Athan. I.e. Eutyches ap. Leon. Ep. 21. ' quo-
modo voluit et scit,' twice, vid. also Eranist. i. p. 11. ii. p. 105.
Leoiit. coiitr. A'est. i. p. 967. Pseudo-Athan. Serm. adv. Div.Har.
§ 8. (t. 2. p. S70.) 12 Acts ii. 24.
humbled Himself unto death, therefore God
also hath highly exalted Him,' so also Peter
says, ' Since, being God, He became man,
and signs and wonders proved Him to be-
holders to be God, therefore it was not pos-
sible that He should be holden of death.' To
man it was not possible to succeed in this ;
for death belongs to man ; wherefore, the
Word, being God, became flesh, that, being
put to death in the flesh. He might quicken
all men by His own power.
45. But since He Himself is said to be
'exalted,' and God ' gave ' Him, and the heretics
think this a defect^ or affection in the essence -
of the Word, it becomes necessary to explain
how these words are used. He is said to
be exalted from the lower parts of the earth,
because death is ascribed even to Him.
Both events are reckoned His, since it was
His Body 3, and none other's, that was exalt-
ed from the dead and taken up into heaven.
And again, the Body being His, and the
Word not being external to it, it is natural
that when the Body was exalted. He, as man,
should, because of the body, be spoken of as
exalted. If then He did not become man, let
this not be said of Him ; but if the Word
became flesh, of necessity the resurrection and
exaltation, as in the case of a man, must be
ascribed to Him, that the death which is
ascribed to Him may be a redemption of the
sin of men and an abolition of death, and
that the resurrection and exaltation may for
His sake remain secure for us. In both re-
spects he hath said of Him, ' God hath highly
exalted Him,' and ' God hath given to Him ;'
that herein moreover he may shew that it is
not the Father that hath become flesh, but it
is His Word, who has become man, and
receives after the manner of men from the
Father, and is exalted by Flim, as has been
said. And it is plain, nor would any one
' cAaTTio/xa, ad Adelph. 4.
2 At first sight it would seem as if S. Athanasius here used
ova-Ca essence for subsistence, or person ; but this is not true
except with an explanation. Its d'n-cct meaning is here, as usual,
essence, though indirectly it comes to imply subsistence. He
is speaking of that Divine Essence which, though also the Al-
mighty Father's, is as simply and entirely the Word's as if it were
only His. Nay, even when the Essence of the Father is spoken
of in a sort of contrast to that of the Son, as in the phrase ovaia.
ef ou'a-t'as, harsh as such expressions are, it is not accurate to say
that ova-Ca is used for subsistence or person, or that two ov<rCai are
spoken of (vid. de Syn. 52, note 8), except, that is, by Arians, as
Eusebius, supr. Ep. Ens. § 6 [or by Origen, Prolegg. ii. § 3 (2)
a.] Just below we find c^vVis toC! Aoyou, § 51 init.
3 This was the question which came into discussion in the
Nestorian controversy, when, as it was then expressed, all that
took place in respect to the Eternal Word as man, belonged to His
Person, and therefore might be predicated of Him ; so that it was
heretical not to confess the Word's body (or the body of God
in the Person of the Word), the VVord's death (as Athan. in the
text), the Word's exaltation, and the Word's, or God's, Mother,
who was in consequence called Seotokos, which was the expression
on which the controversy mainly turned. Cf. Orat. iii. 31,
a passage as precise as if it had been written alter the Nestorian
and Eutychian controversies, though without the technical words
then adopted.
DISCOURSE 1.
333
dispute it, that what the Father gives, He gives
through the Son. And it is marvellous and
overwhelming verily; for the grace which the
Son gives from the Father, that the Son Him-
self is said to receive ; and the exaltation,
which the Son bestows from the Father, with
that the Son is Himself exalted. For He
who is the Son of God, became Himself
the Son of Man ; and, as VVord, He gives from
the Father, for all things which the Father
does and gives. He does and supplies through
Him ; and as the Son of Man, He Himself is
said after the manner of men to receive what
proceeds from Him, because His Body is none
other than His, and is a natural recipient of
grace, as has been said. For He received it
as far as His man's nature^ was exalted ; which
exaltation was its being deified. But such an
exaltation the Word Himself always had ac-
cording to the Father's Godhead and per-
fection, which was HisS.
CHAPTER XII.
Texts Explained ; Secondly,
Psalm xlv. 7, 8.
Whether the words 'therefore,' ' anointed, ' &c. , imply
that the VVord has been rewarded. Argued against
first from the word 'fellows' or 'partakers.' He is
anointed with the Spirit in His manhood to sanctify
human nature. Therefore the Spirit descended on
Him in Jordan, when in the fiesli. And He is said
to sanclily Himself for u.s, and give us the glory He
has received The word ' wherefore ' implies His
divinity. 'Thou hast loved righteousness,' &c., do
not imply trial or choice.
46. Such an explanation of the Apostle's
words confutes the irreligious men ; and what
the sacred poet says admits also the same ortho-
dox sense, which they misinterpret, but which
in the Psalmist is manifestly religious. He
says then, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and
ever ; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre
of Thy Kingdom. Thou hast loved righteous-
ness, and hated iniquity, therefore God, even
Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil
of gladness above Thy fellows'.' Behold, O
ye Arians, and acknowledge even hence
the truth. The Singer speaks of us all as
* fellows ' or ' partakers ' of the Lord ; but
were He one of thmgs which come out of
nothing and of things originate, He Himself
had been one of those who partake. But,
since he hymned Him as the eternal God,
saying, ' Thy throne, O God, is for ever and
ever,' and has declared that all other things
partake of Him, what conclusion must we
draw, but that He is distinct from originated
things, and He only the Father's veritable
Word, Radiance, and Wisdom, which all
4 70V a.v6pumov,
de Syn. 45, note i.
5 Tyn> TraTpiKrjv eauTOV BeoTlfra, cf.
» Ps. xlv. 7, 8.
things originate partake', being sanctified by
Him in the Spirits? And therefore He is
here 'anointed,' not that He may become
God, for He was so even before ; nor that He
may become King, for He had the Kingdom
eternally, existing as God's Image, as the
sacred Oracle shews ; but in our behalf is
this written, as before. For the Israelitish
kings, upon their being anointed, then became
kings, not being so before, as David, as Heze-
kiah, as Josiah, and the rest ; but the Saviour
on the contrary, being God, and ever ruling
in the Father's Kingdom, and being Himself
He that suppUes the Holy Ghost, nevertheless
is here said to be anointed, that, as before,
being said as man to be anointed with the
Spirit, He might provide for us men, not only
exaltation and resurrection, but the indwelling
and intimacy of the Spirit. And signifying
this the Lord Himself hath said by His own
mouth in the Gospel according to John, 'I
have sent them into the world, and for their
sakes do I sanctify Myself, that chey may be
sanctified in the truth+.' In saying this He
has shewn that He is not the sanctified, but
the Sanctifier ; for He is not sanctified by
other, but Himself sanctifies Himself, that
we may be sanctified in the truth. He who
sanctifies Himself is Lord of sanctification.
How then does this take place ? What does
He mean but this ? ' I, being the Father's
Word, I give to Myself, when becoming man,
the Spirit; and Myself, become man, do I
sanctify in Him, that henceforth in Me, who
am Truth (for " Thy Word is Truth "), all may
be sanctified.'
47. If then for our sake He sanctifies Him-
self, and does this when He is become man,
it is very plain that the Spirit's descent on Him
in Jordan was a descent upon us, because of
His bearing our body. And it did not take
place for promotion to the Word, but again
for our sanctification, that we might share
His anointing, and of us it might be said,
' Know ye not that ye are God's Temple, and
the Spirit of God dwelleth in yotis?' For
when the Lord, as man, was washed in Jordan,
it was we who were washed in Him and by
Him^. And when He received the Spirit, we
it was who by Him were made recipients of It.
And moreover for this reason, not as Aaron or
a p. 156, note 4. , , ,. o j
3 It is here said that all things ' originate partake the bon and
are ' sanctified ' by the Spirit. How a yeVi/rjo-is or adoption through
the Son is necessary for every creature in order to its consistence,
life or preservation, has been explained, p. 162, note 3. Some-
times the Son was considered as the special Principle ol reason,
as by Origen, ap. Athan. Serap. iv. 9. vid. himself, de hicarn.
J I. These offices of the Son and the Spirit are contrasted by S.
Basil, in his de Sp. S. tov irpooraTTOCTa Kupioi/, TOV aTjfiiovpYOui'Ta
Aovor, TO (TTepfoOi' TTi/eOno, &C. C. 16. n. 38.
4 John xvii. 18, 19, vid. Cyril, Thesaitr. 20.
5 I Cor. iii. 16. * Pusey on Baptism. 2nd Ed. pp. 275—293.
334
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
David or the rest, was He anointed with oil,
but in another way above all His fellows, 'with
the oil of gladness ; ' which He Himself in-
terprets to be the Spirit, saying by the Pro-
phet, ' The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
because the Lord hath anointed Me?;' as
also the Apostle has said, ' How God anointed
Him with the Holy Ghost^.' When then were
these things spoken of Him but when He came
in the flesh and was baptized in Jordan, and
the Spirit descended on Him ? And indeed
the Lord Himself said, ' The Spirit shall take
of Mine;' and 'I will send Him;' and to His
disciples, ' Receive ye the Holy Ghost^.' And
notwithstanding, He who, as the Word and
Radiance of the Father, gives to others, now
is said to be sanctified, because now He has
become man, and the Body that is sanctifietl
is His. From Him then we have begun to
receive the unction and the seal, John saying,
'And ye have an unction from the Holy One;'
and the Apostle, ' And ye were sealed with the
Holy Spirit of promise ^°.' Therefore because
of us and for us are these words. What ad-
vance then of promotion, and reward of virtue
or generally of conduct, is proved from this
in our Lord's instance ? For if He was not
God, and then had become God, if not being
King He was preferred to the Kingdom, your
reasoning would have had some faint plausi-
bility. But if He is God and the throne of
His kingdom is everlasting, in what way could
God advance ? or what was there wanting to
Him who was sitting on His Father's throne ?
And if, as the Lord Himself has said, the
Spirit is His, and takes of His, and He sends
It, it is not the Word, considered as the Word
and Wisdom, who is anointed with the Spirit
which He Himself gives, but the flesh as-
sumed by Him which is anointed in Him and
by Him"; that the sanctitication coming to
the Lord as man, may come to all men from
Him. For not of Itself, saith He, doth the
Spirit speak, but the Word is He who gives
It to the worthy. For this is like the passage
considered above ; for as the Apostle has
written, 'Who existing in form of God thought
it not a prize to be equal with God, but
7 Isai. Ixi. I, 8 Acts x. 38. 9 John xvi. 14, 7 ; xx. 22.
'° 1 John ii. 20; Eph. i. 13.
" Elsewhere Athan. says that our Lord's Godhead was the
immediate anointing or chrism of the manhood He assumed, m
Apollin. ii. 3, Oral. iv. § 36. vid. Origen. Periarch. ii. 6. n.
4. And S. Greg. Naz. still more expressly, and from the
same text as Athan. Oral. x. fin. Again, 'This [the God-
head] is the anointing of the manhood, not sanctifying by an
energy as the other Christs [anointed] but by a presence of Him
whole who anointed, oAov toO xP'0>''''05<' whence it came to pass
tint what anointed was called man and what was anointed was
inadiiGod.' frrt^. XXX. 20. Damasc. Z^. O. iii. 3. Dei Filius, sicut
pluvia in vellus, toto divinitatis unguento nostram se fudit in
camem. Chrysolog. Serr.i. 60. It is more common, however, to
consider that the anointing was the de.scent of the Spirit, as
Athan. says at the beginning of this section, according to Luke iv.
18 ; Acts X. 38.
emptied Himself, and took a servant's form,'
so David celebrates the Lord, as the ever-
lasting God and King, but sent to us and
assuming our body which is mortal. For this
is his meaning in the Psalm, 'AH thy garments"
smell of myrrh, aloes, and cassia;' and it is
represented by Nicodemus and by Mary's
company, when the one came bringing ' a mix-
ture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred
pounds weight;' and the others^s 'the spices
which they had prepared' for the burial of the
Lord's body.
48. What advancement then was it to the
Immortal to have assumed the mortal ? or
what promotion is it to the Everlasting to
have put on the temporal? what reward can
be great to the Everlasting God and King
in the bosom of the Father ? See ye not, that
this too was done and written because of us
and for us, that us who are mortal and tem-
poral, the Lord, become man, might make
immortal, and bring into the everlasting king-
dom of heaven ? Blush ye not, speaking lies
against the divine oracles? For when our
Lord Jesus Christ had been among us, we
indeed were promotedj as rescued from sin ;
but He is the same': nor did He alter,
when He became man (to repeat what I have
said), but, as has been written, ' The Word of
God abideth for ever^' Surely as, before His
becoming man, He, the Word, dispensed to
the saints the Spirit as His owns, so also
when made man, He sanctifies all by the
Spirit and says to His Disciples, ' Receive
ye the Holy Ghost' And He gave to Moses
and the other seventy ; and through Him
David prayed to the Father, saying, ' Take
not Thy Holy Spirit from me^.' On the other
hand, when made man. He said, ' I will send
to you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truths;' and
He sent Him, He, the Word of God, as being
faithful. Therefore 'Jesus Christ is the same
yesterday, to-day, and for ever^,' remaining un-
alterable, and at once gives and receives, giv-
ing as God's Word, receiving as man. It is
not the Word then, viewed as the Word, that
is promoted ; for He had all things and has
them always ; but men, who have in Him and
through Him their origin 7 of receiving them.
•2 Ps. xlv. 8. Our Lord's manhood is spoken of as a garment ;
more distinctly afterwards, 'As Aaron was himself, and did not
change on putting round him the high priest's garment, but re-
maining the same, was but clothed,' &c. Orat. ii. 8. On thr>
ApoUiuarian abuse of the idea, vid. note in loc.
"3 John xix. 39 ; Luke xxiv. i.
I p. ijg, note 8. ^ Isaj . xl. 8. Adyos but prjiaa. LXX.
3 § 39, note 4. 4 Ps. Ii. 11. 5 John xv. 26.
6 Heb. xiii. 8.
7 The word origin, opxi), implies the doctrine, more fully
brought out in other passages of the Fathers, that our Lord has
deigned to become an instrumental cause, as it may be called,
ol the life of each individual Christian. For at first sight it may
be objected to the whole cou.se of Athan. 's argument thus ;—
What connection is there between the sanctification of Christ's
DISCOURSE I.
335
For, when He is now said to be anointed in
a human respect, we it is who in Him are
anointed ; since also, when He is baptized,
we it is who in Him are baptized. But on all
these things the Saviour throws much light,
when He says to the Father, ' And the glory
which Thou gavest Me, I have given to them,
that they may be one, even as We are one^.'
Because of us then He asked for glory, and
the words occur, 'took' and 'gave' and 'highly
exalted,' that we might take, and to us might
be given, and we might be exalted, in Him ;
as also for us He sanctifies Himself, that we
might be sanctified in Him9.
49. But if. they take adv.antage of the word
* wherefore,' as connected with the passage
in the Psalm, 'Wherefore God, even Thy God,
hath anointed Thee,' for their own purposes,
let these novices in Scripture and masters
in irreligion know, that, as before, the word
' wherefore ' does not imply reward of virtue
or conduct in the Word, but the reason why
He came down to us, and of the Spirit's
anointing which took place in Him for our
sakes. For He says not, ' Wherefore He
anointed Thee in order to Thy being God
or King or Son or Word ; ' for so He was
before and is for ever, as has been shewn ;
but rather, ' Since Thou art God and King,
therefore Thou wast anointed, since none but
Thou couldest unite man to the Holy Ghost,
Thou the Image of the Father, in which '°
we were made in the beginning; for Thine
is even the Spirit' For the nature of things
originate could give no warranty for this,
Angels having transgressed, and men dis-
obeyed". Wherefore there was need of God;
manhood and ours? how ,does it prove that human nature is
sanctified because a particular specimen of it was sanctified in
Him? S. Chrysostom explains, Hotit. in Matt. Ixxxii. 5. And
just before, ' It sufficed not for Him to be made man, to be
scourged, to be sacrificed ; but He assimilates us to Him (iwa-
<l>vpeL iavTov rnxiv), nor merely by faith, but really, has He
made us His body.' Again, 'That we are commingled (ifa-
Ke pa<T9u>iX€v) into that flesh, not merely through love, but
really, is brought about by means of that food which He has
bestowed upon us.' Ho»i. injoann. 46. 3. And so S. Cyril writes
against Nestorius : 'Since we have proved that Christ is the Vine,
and we branches as adhering to a communion with Him, not
spiritual merely but bodily, why clamours he against us thus
bootlessly, saying that, since we adhere to Him, not in a bodily
way, but rather by faith and the affection of love according to the
Law, therefore He has called, not His own flesh the vine, but
rather the Godhead?' in Joann. lib. 10. Cap. 2. pp. 863, 4. And
Nyssen, Oral. Catech. 37. Decocta quasi per ollam carnis nostrae
cruditate, sanctificavit in seternnm noois cibum carnem suam.
Paulin. Ep. 23. Of course in such statements nothing iiiatertal
is implied: Hooker says, 'The mixture of His bodily sub-
stance with ours is a thing which the ancient Fathers disclaim.
Yet the mixture of His flesh with ours they speak of, to signify
what our very bodies through mystical conjunction receive from
that vital efficacy which we know to be in His, and from bodily
mixtures they borrow divers similitudes rather to declare the truth
than the manner of coherence between His sac-ed and the sancti-
fied bodies of saints.' EccL Pol. v. 56. § 10. But without some
explanation of this nature, language such as S- Athanasius's in the
text seems a mere matter of words, vid. infr. § 50 fin.
^ John xvii. 22. 9 Cyril, Thesaur. 20. p. 197.
'" § 51, note 1.
II ayyeAtoi/ [t.\v Trapa/Sai/Twr, avOpoj-rroJi' 6e irapaicova'atfTwv. vid.
infr. § 51. init. Cf. ad A/r. 7. vid. de Deer. 19, note 3.
and the Word is God ; that those who had
become under a curse. He Himself might
set free. If then He was of nothing, He
would not have been the Christ or Anointed,
being one among others and having fellowship
as the rest^^ But, whereas He is God, as
being Son of God, and is everlasting King,
and exists as Radiance and Expression '3 of
the Father, therefore fitly is He the expected
Christ, whom the Father announces to man-
kind, by revelation to His holy Prophets ; that
as through Him we have come to be, so also
in Him all men might be redeemed from their
sins, and by Him all things might be ruled ^
And this is the cause of the anointing which
took place in Him, and of the incarnate
presence of the Word^ which the Psalmist
foreseeing, celebrates, first His Godhead and
kingdom, which is the Father's, in these tones,
'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever ; a
sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy
Kingdom^;' then announces His descent to
us thus, ' Wherefore God, even Thy God, hath
anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above
Thy fellows -*.'
50. What is there to wonder at, what to
disbelieve, if the Lord who gives the Spirit, is
here said Himself to be anointed with the
Spirit, at a time when, necessity requiring it,
He did not refuse in respect of His manhood
to call Himself inferior to the Spirit ? For the
Jews saying that He cast out devils in Beel-
zebub, He answered and said to them, for the
exposure of their blasphemy, ' But if I through
the Spirit of God cast out demons s.' Behold,
the Giver of the Spirit here says that He cast
out demons in the Spirit ; but this is not said,
except because of His flesh. For since man's
nature is not equal of itself to casting out
demons, but only in power of the Spirit, there-
fore as man He said, ' But if I through the
Spirit of God cast out demons.' Of course too
He signified that the blasphemy offered to the
Holy Ghost is greater than that against His
humanity, when He said, 'Whosoever shall
speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be
forgiven him;' such as were those who said, 'Is
infr. Orat. ii. iii. Cyril. \\\ Joann. lib. v. 2. On the subject of the
sins of Angels, vid. Huet. Origen. ii. 5. S 16. Petav. Dogiiz. t. 3.
p. 87. Dissert. Bened. in Cyril. Hier. iii. 5. Natal. Alex. ilist./Et.
i. Diss. 7. " De Deer. 10, note 4.
13 Heb. i. 3.
1 The word wherefore is here declared to denote the fitness
why the Son oi God should become the Son of man. His Throne,
as God, is for ever; He has loved righteousness; there/ore He is
equal to the anointing of the Spirit, as man. And so S. Cyril
on the same text, as in 1. c. in the foregoing note. Cf. Leon .&/.
64. 2. vid. de Inearn. 7 fin. 10. In ilhtd Omit. 2. Cyril, in Gen.
1. p. 13.
2 evaapKos Tropouo-ia. This phrase which has occurred above,
§ 8. is very frequent with Athan. vid. also Cyril. Catech. iii. 11. xii.
15. xiv. 27, 30, Epiph. Hier. 77. 17. The Eutychians avail them-
selves of it at the Council of Constantinople, vid. Hard. Cone. t. 2.
pp. 164. 236.
3 Ps. xlv. 6.
4 lb.
5 Matt. xii. 28.
336
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
not this the carpenter's son^?' but they who
blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, and ascribe
the deeds of the Word to the devil, shall have
inevitable punishment?. This is what the
Lord spoke to the Jews, as man ; but to the
disciples shewing His Godhead and His
majesty, and intimating that He was not in-
ferior but equal to the Spirit, He gave the
Spirit and said, ' Receive ye the Holy Ghost,'
and * I send Him,' and ' He shall glorify Me,'
and 'Whatsoever He heareth, that He shall
speak I' As then in this place the Lord Him-
self, the Giver of the Spirit, does not refuse
to say that through the Spirit He casts out
demons, as man; in like manner He the same,
the Giver of the Spirit, refused not to say,
' The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because
He hath anointed Me 9,' in respect of His
having become flesh, as John hath said ; that
it might be shewn in both these particulars,
that we are they who need the Spirit's grace in
our sanctification, and again who are unable
to cast out demons without the Spirit's power.
Through whom then and from whom behoved
it that the Spirit should be given but through
the Son, whose also the Spirit is ? and when
were we enabled to receive It, except when
the Word became man ? and, as the passage
of the Apostle shews, that we had not been
redeemed and highly exalted, had not He
who exists in form of God taken a servant's
form, so David also shews, that no otherwise
should we have partaken the Spirit and been
sanctified, but that the Giver of the Spirit, the
Word Himself, had spoken of Himself as
anointed with the Spirit for us. And therefore
have we securely received it, He being said to
be anointed in the flesh ; for the flesh being
first sanctified in Him'°, and He being said,
as man, to have received for its sake, we have
the sequel of the Spirit's grace, receiving ' out
of His fulness ".'
51. Nor do the words, 'Thou hast loved
righteousness and hated iniquity,' which are
added in the Psalm, shew, as again you sup-
pose, that the Nature of the Word is alterable,
but rather by their very force signify His un-
alterableness. For since of things originate
the nature is alterable, and the one portion
had transgressed and the other disobeyed,
as has been said, and it is not certain how
they will act, but it often happens that he who
is now good afterwards alters and becomes
different, so that one who was but now righteous,
soon is found unrighteous, wherefore there
was here also need of one unalterable, that
men might have the immutability of the
6 Matt. xii. 32 ; xiii. 55. 7 [Cf. Prolegg. ch. iii. § i (22).].
8 John XX. 22 ; xvi. 13, 14. 9 Is. Ixi. i.
■o § 48, note 7. " John i. 16.
righteousness of the Word as an image and
type for virtue ^ And this thought commends
Itself strongly to the right-minded. For since
the first man Adam altered, and through sin
death came into the world, therefore it became
the second Adam to be unalterable ; that,
should the Serpent again assault, even the
Serpent's deceit might be baffled, and, the
Lord being unalterable and unchangeable, the
Serpent might become powerless in his assaulfc?
against all. For as when Adam had trans-
gressed, his sin reached unto all men, so,
when the Lord had become man and had
overthrown the Serpent, that so great strength
of His is to extend through all. men, so that
each of us may say, ' For we are not ignorant
of his devices ^' Good reason then that the
Lord, who ever is in nature unalterable, loving
righteousness and hating iniquity, should be
anointed and Himself sent, that, He, being
and remaining the same 3, by taking this
alterable flesh, 'might condemn sin in it*/
and might secure its freedom, and its ability ^
henceforth ' to fulfil the righteousness of the
law ' in itself, so as to be able to say, ' But we
are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so
be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in us^.'
52. Vainly then, here again, O Arians, have
ye made this conjecture, and vainly alleged
the words of Scripture ; for God's Word is
unalterable, and is ever in one state, not as
it may happen', but as the Father is; since
how is He Hke the Father, unless He be
thus? or how is all that is the Father's the
Son's also, if He has not the unalterableness
and unchangeableness of the Father^? Not
as being subject to laws^", and biassed to one
side, does He love the one and hate the other,
lest, if from fear of falling away He chooses
the one, we admit that He is alterable other-
wise also ; but, as being God and the Fa-
ther's Word, He is a just judge and lover of
virtue, or rather its dispenser. Therefore being
just and holy by nature, on this account He
is said to love righteousness and to hate
iniquity; as much as to say, that He loves
and chooses the virtuous, and rejects and
hates the unrighteous. And divine Scripture
' Vid. de Incam, 13. 14. vid. also Gent, 41 fin. and Nic. Def,.
17, note 5. Cum justitia nulla esset in terra doctorem misit, quasi
vivam legem. Lactant. Insiit. iv. 25. 'The Only-begotten was
made man like us, .... as if lending us His own stedfastness.'
Cyril, in Joann. lib. v. 2. p. 473 ; vid. also T/iesaiir. 20. p. 198.
August, de Corr. et Grat. 10—12. Damasc. F. O. iv. 4. But the
words of Athan. embrace too many subjects to illustrate distinctly
in a note.
2 2 Cor. ii. II. 3 S 48, note i. 4 Rom. viii. 5 ; ib. 4-
5 Ci. de Incam. 7, Ofut. ii. 68. _ _ 6 Rom. viii. 9.
I an-Acos, oO/c oiTrAios u)pi(r8T), oAA' aKpt^ws i$r)Td.<Tilri. Socr. i, 9.
p. 31. 2 John xvii. 10, § 35, note 2.
»» Eunomius said that our Lord was utterly separate from the-
Father, 'by natural law,' i/o^iu) (^Oo-ews; S Basil observes, 'as.
if the God of all had not power over Himself, eauToO KXipi.a%, but
were in bondage under the decrees of necessity.' contr. Sunotii. vl-
30.
DISCOURSE I.
337
says the same of the Father ; * The Righteous
Lord loveth righteousness ; Thou hatest all
them that work iniquity 3,' and 'The Lord
loveth the gates of Sion, more than all the
dwellings of Jacob*;' and, 'Jacob have I
loved, but Esau have I hated s ; ' and in Isaiah
there is the voice of God again saying, ' I the
Lord love righteousness, and hate robbery of
unrighteousness 6.' Let them then expound
those former words as these latter; for the
former also are written of the Image of God :
else, misinterpreting these as those, they will
conceive that the Father too is alterable. But,
since the very hearing others say this is not
without peril, we do well to think that God
is said to love righteousness and to hate
robbery of unrighteousness, not as if biassed
to one side, and capable of the contrary, so as
to select the latter and not choose the former,
for this belongs to things originated, but that,
as a judge, He loves and takes to Him the
righteous and withdraws from the bad. It
follows then to think the same concerning
the Image of God also, that He loves and
hates no otherwise than thus. For such must
be the nature of the Image as is Its Father,
though the Arians in their blindness fail to
see either that Image or any other truth of
the divine oracles. For being forced from
the conceptions or rather misconceptions ^ of
their own hearts, they fall back upon passages
of divine Scripture, and here too from want
of understanding, according to their wont,
they discern not their meaning; but laying
down their own irreligion as a sort of canon of
interpretation^, they wrest the whole of the
divine oracles into accordance with it. And
so on the bare mention of such doctrine, they
deserve nothing but the reply, ' Ye do err,
not knowing the Scriptures nor the power
of God9;' and if they persist in it, they must
be put to silence, by the words, ' Render to '
man ' the things that are ' man's, ' and to God
the things that are ' God's '°.
CHAPTER XIIL
Texts Explained ; Thirdly, Hebrews i. 4.
Additional texts brought as objections; e.g. Heb. i. 4;
vii. 22. Whetlier tlie word ' better ' implies likeness
to the Angels ; and ' made ' or ' become ' implies
creation. Necessary to consider the circumstances
under which Scripture speaks. Difference between
' better ' and ' greater ; ' texts in proof. ' Made ' or
4 lb. Ixxxvii. 2.
5 Mai. i. 2, 3.
3 Ps. xi. 7 ; V. 5.
fi Is. Ixi. 8 _
7 61/i/oicoi' (xoAAov 8e irapavoiwi', vid. § 40, note i. • _
s Instead of professing to examine Scripture or to acquiesce in
what they had been taught, the Arians were remarkable for insisting
on certain abstract positions or inferences on which they make the
whole controversy turn. Vid. Socrates' account of Arius's com-
mencement, 'If God has a Son, he must have a beginning of
existence,' &c. &c., and so the word ayei/ijroi'.
9 Matt. xxii. 29. '° lb. xxii. 21.
VOL. IV. ;
' become ' a general word. Contrast in Heb. i. 4,
between the Son and the Works in point of nature.
The difference of the punishments under the two
Covenants shews the difference of the natures of the
Son and the Angels. ' Become ' relates not to the
nature of tlie Word, but to His manhood and office
and relation towards us. Parallel passages in which
the term is applied to the Eternal F'ather.
53. But it is written, say they, in the Pro-
verbs, ' The Lord created me the beginning of
His ways, for His Works ' ; ' and in the
Epistle to the Hebrews the Apostle says,
' Being made so much better than the Angels,
as He hath by inheritance obtained a more
excellent Name than they ^' And soon after,
' Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the
heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and
High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus,
who was faithful to Him that made Him 3.'
And in the Acts, ' Therefore let all the house
of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made
that same Jesus whom ye have crucified both
Lord and Christ +.' These passages they brought
forward at every turn, mistaking their sense,
under the idea that they proved that the Word
of God was a creature and work and one of
things originate ; and thus they deceive the
thoughtless, making the language of Scripture
their pretence, but instead of the true sense
sowing upon it the poison of their own heresy.
For had they known, they would not have been
irreligious against ' the Lord of glory s,' nor
have wrested the good words of Scripture. If
then henceforward openly adopting Caiaphas's
way, they have determined on judaizing, and
are ignorant of the text, that verily God shall
dwell upon the earth ^, let them not inquire
into the Apostolical sayings ; for this is not the
manner of Jews. But if, mixing themselves
up with the godless Manichees ?, they deny
that ' the Word was made flesh,' and His In-
carnate presence, then let them not bring for-
ward the Proverbs, for this is out of place with
the Manichees. But if for preferment-sake,
and the lucre of avarice which follows ^, and
the desire for good repute, they venture not on
denying the text, ' The Word was made flesh,'
since so it is written, either let them rightly in-
terpret the words of Scripture, of the embodied
presence of the Saviour, or, if they deny their
sense, let them deny that the Lord became
man at all. For it is unseemly, while confess-
ing that ' the Word became flesh,' yet to be
ashamed at what is written of Him, and on
that account to corrupt the sense.
54. For it is written. ' So much better than
1 Prov. viii. 22. vid. Orat. ii. §§ 19 — 72. 2 Heb. i. 4 ; ii>- i-
3 Vid. Orat. ii. §§ 2— 11. " Acts ii. 36. vid. Orat.ix.
§§ 11—18. 5 I Cor. ii. 8. * Zech. n. 10; vid.
I Kings viii. 27 ; Bar. iii. 37. 7 Vid. the same contrast,
de Syn. § 33 ; supr. § 8 ; Orat. iv. § 23. 8 § s, note d.
3SS
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIAN5.
the Angels ; ' let us then first examine this.
Now it is right and necessary, as in all divine
Scripture, so here, faithfully to expound the
time of which the Apostle wrote, and the per-
son \ and the point ; lest the reader, from ig-
norance missing either these or any similar
particular, may be wide of the true sense. This
understood that inquiring eunuch, when he
thus besought Philip, ' I pray thee, of whom
doth the Prophet speak this ? of himself, or of
some other man =^ ? ' for he feared lest, expound-
ing the lesson unsuitably to the person, he should
wander from the right sense. And the disciples,
wishing to learn the time of what was foretold,
besought the Lord, * Tell us,' said they, ' when
shall these things be ? and what is the sign of
Thy- coming 3 ? ' And again, hearing from the
Saviour the events of the end, they desired to
learn the time of it, that they miglit be kept
from error themselves, and might be able to
teach others ; as, for instance, when they had
learned, they set right the Thessalonians +, who
were going wrong. When then one knows
properly these points, his understanding of
the faith is right and healthy ; but if he mis-
takes any such points, forthwith he falls into
heresy. Thus Hymengeus and Alexander and
their fellows s were beside the time, when they
said that the resurrection had already been ;
and the Galatians were after the time, in
making much of circumcision now. And to
miss the person was the lot of the Jews, and is
still, who think that of one of themselves is
said, 'Behold, the Virgin shall conceive, and
bear a Son, and they shall call his Name Em-
manuel, which is being interpreted, God with
us^; ' and that, 'A prophet shall the Lord your
God raise up to you 7,' is spoken of one of the
Prophets ; and who, as to the words, ' He was
led as a sheep to the slaughter^,' instead of
learning from Philip, conjecture them spoken
of Isaiah or some other of the former Pro-
phets 9.
55- (3-) Such has been the state of mind
under which Christ's enemies have fallen into
their execrable heresy. For had they known
the person, and the subject, and the season of
the Apostle's words, they would not have ex-
pounded of Christ's divinity what belongs to
His manliood, nor in their folly have com-
mitted so great an act of irreligion. Now this
I De Deer. 14, note 2. 2 Acts viii. 34.
. 3 Matt. xxiv. 3. 4 Vid. i Tbess. iv. 13 ; 2 Thess. ii. r, &c.
S a Tim. ii. 17, 18 ; 1 Tim. i. 20. 6 is. vii. 14 ; Matt. i. 23.
7 Deut. xvni. 15. 8 Jg. Jiji. 7.
9 The more common evasion on the part of the Jews was to
interpret the prophecy of their own sufferings in captivity. It
was an idea of Grotius that the prophecy received a first fulfil-
ment in Jeremiah, vid. Justin Tryph. t2 et al., Iren. Hcer. iv. 33.
Tertull. mjud. 9, Cyprian. Testint. injud. ii. 13, Euseb.iPifw. iii.
2, &c. [cf Driver and Neubauer Jewish commentaries on Is. Hi.
and liii. and Introduction to English Translation of these pp.
x.xxvii. sq.]
will be readily seen, if one expounds properly
the beginning of this lection. For the Apostle
says, ' God who at sundry times and divers
manners spake in times past unto the fathers
by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken
unto us by His Son^; ' then again shortly after
he says, ' when He had by Himself purged our
sins, He sat down on the right hand of the
Majesty on high, having become so much
better than the Angels, as He hath by inherit-
ance obtained a more excellent Name than
they ^' It appears then that the Apostle's
words make mention of that time, when God
.spoke unto us by His Son, and when a purging
of sins took place. Now when did He speak
unto us by His Son, and when did purging of
sins take place ? and when did He become
man ? when, but subsequently to the Prophets
in the last days ? Next, proceeding with his
account of the economy in which we were
concerned, and speaking of the last times, he
is naturally led to observe that not even in the
former times was God silent with men, but
spoke to them by the Prophets. And, whereas
the Prophets ministered, and the Law was
spoken by Angels, while the Son too came on
earth, and that in order to minister, he was
forced to add, ' Become so much better than
the Angels,' wishing to shew that, as much as
the son excels a servant, so much also the
ministry of the Son is better than the ministry
of servants. Contrasting then the old ministry
and the new, the Apostle deals freely with the
Jews, writing and saying, * Become so much
better than the Angels.' This is why through-
out he uses no comparison, such as ' become
greater,' or ' more honourable,' lest we should
think of Him and them as one in kind, but
'ibetter' is his word, by way of marking the dif-
ference of the Son's nature from things origin-
ated. And of this we have proof from divine
Scripture ; David, for instance, saying in the
Psalm, ' One day in Thy courts is better than
a thousand 3 : ' and Solomon crying out, ' Re-
ceive my instruction and not silver, and know-
ledge rather than choice gold. For wisdom is
better than rubies; and all the things that may
be desired are not to be compared to it 4.' Are
not wisdom and stones of the earth different in
essence and separate in nature ? Are heavenly
courts at all akin to earthly houses ? Or is there
any similarity between things eternal and spiri-
tual, and things temporal and mortal? And
this is what Isaiah says, 'Thus saith the Lord
unto the eunuchs that keep My sabbaths, and
choose the things that please Me, and take
hold of My Covenant; even unto them will I
» Heb. i. I, a.
3 Ps. Ixxxiv. lo.
2 lb. 3,. 4.
4 Prov. viii. 10, II.
DISCOURSE I.
339
give in Mine house, and within My walls, a
place and a name better than of sons and of
daughters : I will give them an everlasting
name that shall not be cut off s.' In like man-
ner there is nought akin between the Son and
the Angels ; so that the word ' better ' is not
used to compare but to contrast, because of the
difference of His nature from them. And
therefore the Apostle also himself, when he in-
terprets the word ' better,' places its force in
nothing short of the Son's excellence over
things originated, calling the one Son, the
other servants ; the one, as a Son with the
Father, sitting on the right ; and the others, as
servants, standing before Him, ard being sent,
and fulfilling offices.
56. Scripture, in speaking thus, implies, O
Arians, not that the Son is originate, but rather
other than things originate, and proper to the
Father, being in His bosom. (4.) Nors» does
even the expression ' become,' which here
occurs, shew that the Son is originate, as ye
suppose. If indeed it were simply ' become '
and no more, a case might stand for the
Arians ; but, whereas they are forestalled with
the word ' Son ' throughout the passage, shew-
ing that He is other than things originate, so
again not even the word ' become ' occurs
absolutely^, but 'better' is immediately sub-
joined. For the writer thought the expression
immaterial, knowing that in the case of one who
was confessedly a genuine Son, to say ' become '
is the same with saying that He had been
made, and is, 'better.' For it matters not
even if we speak of what is generate, as ' be-
come ' or ' made ; ' but on the contrary, things
originate cannot be called generate, God's handi-
work as they are, except so far as after their
making they partake of the generate Son,
and are therefore said to have been gene-
rated also, not at all in their own nature, but
because of their participation of the Son in
the Spirit 7. And this again divine Scripture
recognises ; for it says in the case of thmgs
originate, 'All things came to be through Hnn,
and without Him nothing came to be^' and,
5 Is. Ivi. 4, 5.
S» There is apparently much confusion in tlie arrangement of
the paragraphs that follow ; though the appearajice may perhaps
arise from Athan.'s incorporating some passage from a former
work into his text, cf. note on § 32. It is easy to suggest altera-
tions, but not anything satisfactory. The same ideas are scat-
tered about. Thus cru-yKptTiKw? occurs in (3) and (5). The Son's
seat on the right, and Angels in ministry, (3) tin. (10) (11). 'Be-
come' interpreted as 'is originated and is,' (4) and (11). The
«xplanatiou of ' become,' (4) (9) (ii) (14). The Word's C7ri5i)fiia is
introduced in (7) and (8) napovaCa bemg the more common word ;
iinSrifj.ia occurs Oral. ii. § 67 init. Sei ap. i. 9. Vid. however, § 61,
notes. If a change must be suggested, it would be to transfer
.(4) after (8) and (10) after (3).
6 a7roAeAi/;u,eVios. vid. also Qyat. ii. 54. 62. iil. 22. Basil, contr.
Euno7n. i. p. 244. Cyril. Tkesaur. 25, p. 236. &i.oXi\vft.ivu>%. Orat.
iv. I.
7 LThe note, referred to above, p. 169, in which Newman
defends the treatment of yei^Tov and ysvvi[rov as synonymous,
while yet admitting that they are expressly distinguished by Ath.
in the text, is omitted for lack of space.] ^ John i. 3.
'In wisdom hast Thou made them all?;' but
in the case of sons which are generate, ' To
Job there came to be seven sons and three
daughters '°,' and, ' Abraham was an hundred
years old when there came to be to him Isaac
his son " ; ' and Moses said '^, ' If to any one
there come to be sons.' Therefore since the
Son is other than things originate, alone the
proper offspring of the Father's essence, this
plea of the Arians about the word ' become ' is
worth nothing.
(5.) If moreover, baffled so far, they .should
still violently insist that the language is that of
comparison, and that comparison in con-
sequence implies oneness of kind, so that the
Son is of the nature of Angels, they will in
the first place incur the disgrace of rivalling and
repeating what Valentinus held, and Carpocrates,
and those other heretics, of whom the former
said that the Angels were one in kind with the
Christ, and Carpocrates that Angels are tramers
of the world ^ Perchance it is under the in-
struction of these masters that they compare the
Word of God with the Angels.
57. Though surely amid such speculations,
they will be moved by the sacred poet, saying,
' Who is he among the gods that shall be like
unto the Lord %' and, ' Among the gods there
is none like unto Thee, O Lord 3.' However,
they must be answered, with the chance of
their profiting by it, that comparison confes-
sedly does belong to subjects one in kind, not
to those which differ. No one, for instance,
would compare God with man, or again man
with brutes, nor wood with stone, because
their natures are unlike ; but God is beyond
comparison, and man is compared to man, and
wood to wood, and stone to stone. Now in
such cases we should not speak of ' better,' but
of ' rather ' and ' more ; ' thus Joseph was
comely rather than his brethren, and Rachel
than Leah ; star * is not better than star, but is
the rather excellent in glory ; whereas in bring-
ing together things which difter in kind, then
' better ' is used to mark the difference, as has
been said in the case of wisdom and jewels.
Had then the Apostle said, ' by so much has
the Son precedence of the Angels,' or ' by so
much greater,' you would have had a plea, as if
the Son were compared with the Angels ; but,
as it is, in saying that He is 'better,' and differs
as far as Son from servants, the Apostle shews
that He is other than the Angels in nature.
9 Ps civ. 24. »° Job i. a. " Gen. xxi. 5.
12 Cf. Deut. xxi. 15.
» These tenets and similar ones were common to many branches
of the Gnostics, who paid worship to the Angels, or ascribed to
them the creation ; the doctrine of their consubstantiality with our
Lord arose from their belief in emanation. S. Athanasius here
uses the word 6/xovei//js, not oiu-oovuio-; which was usual with them
(vid Bull. Z>. /■ A', ii. I, § 2) as with the Manichees after them,
Beausobre, Manich. iii. 8. * Ps. Ixxxix. 7. 3 lb. Ixxxvi 8.
4 Orat. ii. § 20.
Z 2
340
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARTANS.
(6.) Moreover by saying that He it is who
has ' laid the foundation of all things V he
shews that He is other than all things originate.
But if He be other and different in essence
from their nature, what comparison of His
essence can ^ there be, or what likeness to
them ? though, even if they have any such
thoughts, Paul shall refute them, who speaks to
the very point, ' For unto which of the Angels
said He at any time. Thou art My Son, this day
have I begotten Thee ? And of the Angels He
saith, Who maketh His Angels spirits, and His
ministers a flame of fire 7.'
58. Observe here, the word 'made' be-
longs to things originate, and he calls them
things made ; but to the Son he speaks not
of making, nor of becoming, but of eternity
and kingship, and a Framer's office, exclaim-
ing, 'Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and
ever;' and, 'Thou, Lord, in the beginning
hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the
heavens are the works of Thine hands ; they
shall perish, but Thou remainest.' From which
words even they, were they but willing, might
perceive that the Framer is other than things
framed, the former God, the latter things origin-
ate, made out of nothing. For what has been
said, 'They shall perish,' is said, not as if the
creation were destined for destruction, but to
express the nature of things originate by the
issue to which they tend ^. For things which
admit of perishing, though through the grace 9
of their Maker they perish not, yet have come
out of nothing, and themselves witness that they
once were not. And on this account, since
their nature is such, it is said of the Son, ' Thou
remainest,' to shew His eternity ; for not having
the capacity of perishing, as things originate
have, but having eternal duration, it is foreign
to Him to have it said, ' He was not before His
generation,' but proper to Him to be always,
and to endure together with the Father. And
though the Ai)Ostle had not thus written in his
Epistle to the Hebrews, still his other Epistles,
and the whole of Scripture, would certainly
forbid their entertaining such notions concern-
ing the Word. But since he has here expressly
written it, and, as has been above shewn, the
Son is Offspring of the Father's essence, and He
is Framer, and other things are framed by Him,
and He is the Radiance and Word and Image
and Wisdom of the Father, and things originate
stand and serve in their place below the Triad,
therefore the Son is different in kind and
different in essence from things originate, and
on the contrary is proper to the Father's es-
sence and one in nature with it '°.' And hence
5 Heb. i. 10. 6 De Syn. 45, note 9. 7 Heb. i. 7.
8 § 29, note io._ 9 De Deer. 19, note 3.
'=■ Here again is a remarkable avoidance of the word OMOOva-tov.
it is that the Son too says not, ' My Father is
better than I",' lest we should conceive Him
to be foreign to His Nature, but ' greater,' not
indeed in greatness, nor in time, but because of
His generation from the Father Himself^^, nay,
in saying ' gn.!ater ' He again shews that He is
proper to His essence.
59. (7). And the Apostle's own reason for
saying, ' so much better than the Angels,' was
not any wish in the first instance to compare
the essence' of the Word to things originate
(for He cannot be compared, rather they are
incommeasurable), but regarding the Word's
visitation in the flesh, and the Economy which
He then sustained, he wished to shew that He
was not like those who had gone before Him ;
so that, as much as He excelled in nature those
who were sent afore by Him, by so much also
the grace which came from and through Him
was better than the ministry through Angels^.
For it is the function of servants, to demand
the fruits and no more ; but of the Son and
Master to forgive the debts and to transfer the
vineyard.
(8.) Certainly what the Apostle proceeds to
say shews the excellence of the Son over things
originate ; ' Therefore we ought to give the
more earnest heed to the things which we have
heard, lest at any time we should let them
slip. For if the word spoken by Angels was
stedfast, and every transgression and dis-
obedience received a just recompense of
reward ; how shall we escape, if we neglect so
great salvation ; which at the first began to be
spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto
us by them that heard Him 3.' But if the Son
were in the number of things originate, He was
not better than they, nor did disobedience
involve increase of punishment because of
Him ; any more than in the Ministry of Angels
there was not, according to each Angel,
greater or less guilt in the transgressors, but
the Law was one, and one was its vengeance
on transgressors. But, whereas the Word is
not in the number of originate things, but is
Son of the Father, therefore, as He Himself is
better and His acts better and transcendent,
so also the punishment is worse. Let them
contemplate then the grace which is through
the Son, and let them acknowledge the witness
which He gives even from His works, that He
is other than things originated, and alone the
very Son in the Father and the Father in Him.
He says that the Son is ETtpoyei/T)? (cat hepoovtrioi Tiav yecijxwi',
/cat TJjs ToO Traxpo; ovfft'as t6tos Ka'i bixo^vrjs. vid. |§ 20, 21, notes,
>■ John xiv. 28.
^2 Athan. otherwise explains this text, /nearn. eontr. Ari'an. 4.
if it be his. This text is thus taken by Basil, eontr. Euii. iv.
p. 289. Naz. Orat- 30. 7, &c. &c. ' §§ 60. 62. 64. ii. § i3.
* He also applies this text to our Lord's economy and ministry
de ^ent. D. 11. in Apoll. ii. 15. 3 Heb. ii. i — 3.
DISCOURSE I.
341
And the Law 4 was spoken by Angels, and per-
fected no ones, needing the visitation of the
Word, as Paul hath said ; but that visitation
has perfected the work of the Father. And
then, from Adam unto Moses death reigned ^ ;
but the presence of the Word abolished death ?.
And no longer in Adam are we all dying ^ ;
but in Christ we are all reviving. And then,
from Dan to Beersheba was the Law proclaimed,
«ind in Judaea only was God known ; but now,
unto all the earth has gone forth their voice,
and all the earth has been filled with the
knowledge of God 9, and the disciples have
made disciples of all the nations '°, and now is
fuhilled what is written, ' They shall be all
taught of God ".' And then what was revealed
was but a type ; but now the truth has been
manifested. And this again the Apostle him-
self describes afterwards more clearly, saying,
' By so much was Jesus matle a surety of a
better testament ;' and again, ' But now hath
He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how
much also He is the Mediator of a better
covenant, which was established upon better
promises.' And, 'For the Law made nothing
perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope
did.' And again he says, 'It was therefore
necessary that the patterns of things in the
heavens sliould be purified with these ; but the
heavenly things themselves with better sacri-
fices than these '^' Both in the verse before
us, then, and throughout, does he ascribe the
word ' better ' to the Lord, who is better and
other than originated things. For better is the
sacrifice through Him, better the hope in Him ;
and also the promises through Him, not merely
as great compared with small, but the one
differing from the other in nature, because He
who conducts this economy, is 'better' than
things originated.
6o. (9.) Moreover the words ' He is become
surety ' denote the pledge in our behalf which
He has provided. For as, being the ' Word,'
He 'became flesh',' and 'become' we ascribe
to the flesh, for it is originated and created, so
do we here the expression ' He is become,'
expounding it according to a second sense,
viz. because He has become man. And let
these contentious men know, that they fail in
this their perverse purpose ; let them know
that Paul does not signify that His essence ^
has become, knowing, as he did, that He is
4 Part of this chapter, as for instance (7) (8) Is much more
finished in point of style than the genera! course of his Orations.
It may be indeed only the natural consequence ol his wnrming
with his subject, but this beautiful passage looks very much like an
insertion. Some words of it are lound in Seni. D. 11, written
A few years sooner [cf. supr. 33, note 2.]
5 Heb. vii. 19. 6 Rom. v. 14. 7 2 Tim. i. lo.
* 1 Cor. XV. 22. 9 Is. xi. 9 ; vid. Ps. Ixxvi. i, and xix. 4.
'o Matt, xxviii. 19. " John vi. 45 ; Is. liv. 13.
'* Heb. vii. 22 ; viii. 6 ; vii. 19 ; ix. 23. ' John i. 14.
' § 45, note.
Son and Wisdom and Radiance and Image of
the Father ; but here too he refers the word
'become' to the ministry of that covenant, in
which death which once ruled is abolished.
Since here also the ministry through Him has
become better, in that ' what the Law could
not do in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending His own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the
flesh 3^' ridding it of the trespass, in which,
being continually held captive, it admitted not
the J3ivine mind. And having rendered the
flesh capable of the Word, He made us walk,
no longer according to the flesh, but according
to the Spirit, and say again and again, ' But we
are not in the flesh but in the Spirit,' and,
' For the Son of God came into the world, not
to judge the world, but to redeem all men, and
that the world might be saved through Him*.'
Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judg-
ment from the Law; but now the Word has
taken on Himself the judgment, and having
suffered in the body for all, has bestowed sal-
vation to all's. With a view to this has John
exclaimed, 'The law was given by Moses, but
grace and truth came by Jesus Christ ^' Better
is grace than the Law, and truth than the
shadow.
61. (10.) 'Better' then, as has been said.
could not have been brought to pass by any
other than the Son, who sits on the right hand
of the Father. And what does this denote
but the Son's genuineness, and that the God-
head of the Father is the same as the Son's??
For in that the Son reigns in His Father's
kingdom, is seated upon the same throne as
the Father, and is contemplated in the Father's
Godhead, therefore is the Word God, and
whoso beholds the Son, beholds the Father;
and thus there is one God. Sitting then on
the right, yet He does not place His Father on
the left^; but whatever is right 9 and precious
in the Father, that also the Son has, and says,
' All things that the Father hath are Mine '°.'
Wherefore also the Son, though sitting on the
right, also sees the Father on the right, though
it be as become man that He says, ' I saw the
Lord always before My face, for He is on My
right hand, therefore I shall not fall ".' This
shews moreover that the Son is in the Father
3 Rom. viii. 3. 4 John iii. 17.
5 Vid. Incnrn. pas.slm. Theod. Eianist iii. pp. 196 — 198, &c.
&c. It was the tendency of all the heresies concerning the Person
of Christ to explain away or deny the Atonement. The Arjans,
after the Platonists, insisted on the pre-existing Priesthood, as
if the incarnation and crucifixion were not of its essence. The
ApoUinarians resolved the Incarnation into a manifestation, Theod.
Eran. i. The Nestorians denied the Atonement, Procl.ad Armen.
p. 615. And the Eutychians, Leont. Ep. 28, 5.
6 John i. 17. 7 De Syn. 45, note i.
8 Cf. August, de Fid. et Synib. 14. Does this passage of
Athan.'s shew that the Anthropomorphites were stirring in Egypt
already? Sefiov
10 John xvi. 15. " Ps. xvi. 8.
342
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
and the Father in the Son; for the Father
being on the right, the Son is on the riglit ;
and while the Son sits on the right of the
Father, the Father is in the Son. And the
Angels indeed minister ascending and de-
scending : but concerning the Son he saith,
'And let all the Angels of God worship Him ^^'
And when Angels minister, they say, ' I am
sent unto thee,' and, ' The Lord has com-
manded ;' but the Son, though He say in
human fashion, *I am sent "3^' and comes to
finish the work and to minister, nevertheless
says, as being Word and Image, ' I am in the
Father, and the Father in Me ;' artd, ' He that
hath seen Me, hath seen the Father;' and,
'The Father that abideth in Me, He doeth the
works ^* ; ' for what we behold in that Image
are the Father's works.
(ii.) What has been already said ought
to shame those persons who are fighting
against the very truth ; however, if, because it
is written, ' become better,' they refuse to
understand ' become,' as used of the Son,
as ' has been and is ^ ;' or again as referring
to the better covenant having come to be % as
we have said, but consider from this expres-
sion that the Word is called originate, let them
hear the same again in a concise form, since
they have forgotten what has been said.
62. If the Son be in the number of the
Angels, then let the word ' become ' apply to
Him as to them, and let Him not ditfer at all
from them in nature ; but be they either sons
with Flim, or be He an Angel with them ; sit
they one and all together on the right hand of
the Father, or be the Son standing with them
all as a ministering Spirit, sent forth to minister
Himself as they are. But if on the other hand
Paul distinguishes the Son from things origin-
ate, saying, ' To which of the Angels said He
at any time. Thou art My Son?' and the one
frames heaven and earth, but they are made
by Him ; and He sitteth with the Father, but
they stand by ministering, who does not see
that he has not used the word 'become' of the
essence of the Word, but of the ministration
come through Him ? For as, being the ' Word,'
He ' became flesh,' so when become man. He
became by so much better in His ministry
than the ministry which came by the Angels,
as Son excels servants and Framer things
framed. Let them cease therefore to take the
word ' become ' of the substance of the Son,
for He is not one of originated things; and let
them acknowledge that it is indicative of His
ministry and the Economy which came to pass.
13 Heb. i. 6.
'3 Vid. John xvii. 3 ; Mark x. 45.
» Of His divine nature, (4) (8).
and (10).
'4 John xiv. 10, 9.
' Of His human nature,
(12.) But how He became better in His
ministry, being better in nature than things
originate, appears from what has been said
before, which, I consider, is sufficient in itself
to put them to shame. But if they carry on
the contest, it will be proper upon their rash
daring to close with them, and to oppose
to them those similar expressions which are
used concerning the Father Himself. This
may serve to shame them to refrain their
tongue from evil, or may teach them the
depth of their folly. Now it is written, 'Be-
come my strong rock and house of defence,
that Thou mayest save me 3.' And again,,
' The Lord became a defence for the op-
pressed 4,' and the like which are found in
divine Scripture. If then they apply these
passages to the Son, which perhaps is nearest
to the truth, then let them acknowledge that
the sacred writers ask Him, as not being
originate, to become to them 'a strong rock
and house of defence ;' and for the future let
them understand 'become,' and 'He made,'^
and ' He created,' of His incarnate presence.
For then did He become ' a strong rock and
house of defence,' when He bore our sins
in His own body upon the tree, and said,
' Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rests.'
63. But if they refer these passages to the
Father, will they, when it is here also written,
' Become ' and ' He became,' venture so far as
to affirm that God is originate ? Yea, they will
dare, as they thus argue concerning His Word ;
for the course of their argument carries them
on to conjecture the same things concerning the
Father, as they devise concerning His Word.
But far be such a notion ever from the thoughts
of all the faithful ! for neither is the Son in the
number of things originated, nor do the words
of Scripture in question, ' Become,' and ' He
became,' denote beginning of being, but that
succour which was given to the needy. For
God is always, and one and the same ; but men
have come to be afterwards through the Word,
when the Father Himself willed it; and God is
invisible and inaccessible to originated things,
and especially to men upon earth. When then
men in infirmity invoke Him, when in persecu-
tion they ask help, when under injuries they
pray, then the Invisible, being a lover of man,
shines forth upon them with His beneficence,
which He exercises through and in His proper
Word. And forthwith the divine manifestation
is made to every one according to his need, and
is made to the weak health, and to the persecu-
ted a ' refuge ' and * house of defence ; ' and to
the injured He says, ' While thou speakest I
3 Ps. XXX 3.
lb. ix. Q.
5 Matt. xi. 28.
DISCOURSE I.
34:
will say, Here I am^.' Whatever defence then
comes to each through the Son, that each says
that God has come to be to himself, since
succour comes from God Himself through the
Word. Moreover the usage of men recognises
this, and every one will confess its propriety.
Often succour comes from man to man ; one
has undertaken toil for the injured, as Abraham
for Lot; and another has opened his home
to the persecuted, as Obadiah to the sons of
the prophets ; and another has entertained a
stranger, as Lot the Angels ; and another has
supplied the needy, as Job those who begged
of him. And then, should one and the other
of these benefited persons say, ' Such a one
became an assistance to me,' and another 'and
to me a refuge,' and * to another a supply,' yet
in so saying would not be speaking of the
original becoming or of the essence of their
benefactors, but of the beneficence coming to
themselves from them ; so also when the saints
say concerning God, ' He became ' and ' be-
come Thou,' they do not denote any original
becoming, for God is without beginning and
unoriginate, but the salvation which is made
to be unto men from Him.
64. This being so understood, it is parallel
also respecting the Son, that whatever, and
6 Is. Iviii. g.
however often, is said, such as, ' He became '
and ' become,' should ever have the same
sense : so that as, when we hear the words in
question, 'become better than the Angels'
and ' He became,' we should not conceive any
original becoming of the Word, nor in any
way fancy from such terms that He is originate ;
but should understand Paul's words of His
ministry and Economy when He became man.
For when ' the Word became flesh and dwelt
among us? ' and came to minister and to grant
salvation to all, then He became to us sal-
vation, and became life, and became pro-
pitiation ; then His economy in our behalf
became much better than the Angels, and
He became the Way and became the Resur-
rection. And as the words 'Become my strong
rock ' do not denote that the essence of God
Himself became, but His lovingkindness, as
has been said, so also here the 'having be-
come bettet than the Angels,' and, ' He be-
came,' and, 'by so much is Jesus become
a better surety,' do not signify that the es-
sence of the Word is originate (perish the
thought !), but the beneficence which towards
us came to be through His becoming Man;
unthankful though the heretics be, and ob-
stinate in behalf of their irreligion.
John i, 14.
EXCURSUS B. ON § 22 (Note 3).
On the meaning of the formula irplv yevvrjdrjvai ovk ?]i/,
in the Nicene Anathema.
It was observed on p. 75, note ^'j, that there were two clauses in the Nicene Anathema
which required explanation. One of them, c'l eVepa? vTroordo-fcos ^ olxria^, has been discussed
in the Excursus, pp. 77 — 82 ; the other, iTp\v yivvr]6mai ovk rjv, shall be considered now.
Bishop Bull has suggested a very ingenious interpretation of it, which is not obvious, but
which, when stated, has much plausibility, as going to explain, or rather to sanction, certain
modes of speech in some early Fathers of venerable authority, which have been urged by
heterodox writers, and given up by Catholics of the Roman School, as savouring of Arianism.
The foregoing pages have made it abundantly evident that the point of controversy between
CathoHcs and Arians was, not whether our Lord was God, but whether He was Son of God ;
the solution of the former question being involved in that of the latter. The Arians main-
tained that the very word ' Son ' implied a ' beginning,' or that our Lord was not Very God ;
the Catholics said that it implied ' connaturality,' or that He was Very God as one with God.
Now five early writers, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, Hippolytus, and Novatian, of whom
the authority of Hippolytus is very great, not to speak of Theophilus and Athenagoras,
whatever be thought of Tatian and of Novatian, seem to speak of the divine generation
as taking place immediately before the creation of the world, that is, as if not eternal, though
344 NOTE ON 'HE WAS NOT BEFORE HIS GENERATION,'
at the same time they teach that our Lord existed before that generation. In other words
they seem to teach that He was the Word from eternity, and became the Son at the beginning
of all things ; some of them expressly considering Him, first as the \6yos ivhiaOeTOi, or Reason,
in the Father, or (as may be speciously represented) a mere attribute ; next, as the Xoyos
np<'(f)opiK6s, or Word, terms which are explained, note on de Syn. 26 (5). This doctrine, when
divested of figure and put into hteral statement, might appear nothing more or less than this, —
that at the beginning of the world the Son was created after the likeness of the Divine attribute
of Reason, as its image or expression, and thereby became the Divine Word ; was made
the instrument of creation, called the Son from that ineffable favour and adoption which
God had bestowed on Him, and in due time sent into the world to manifest God's
perfections to mankind ; — which, it is scarcely necessary to say, is the doctrine of Arianism.
Thus S. Hippolytus says, —
ToiV 8e yivofievcov apxrjyov Kai crvfx^ovKov Koi epyarrji/ iytvva Xdyoi', hv \6yov e\(i>v iv eavra (wparov re
ovTa Tco KTi^opevco Kocrpcc, nparov ttouI' Trportpav (p(Ovrjv <p6(yy6pfvos, koi (pcos fK ^cdtos yei'i/wi', wpoiJKfv
TTJ KTi<Tfi Kvpiov. contr. Noet. 10.
And S. Theophilus : —
' \l.\<x)V oiiv 6 tieui- rov iavrov Xoyov fvbwdeTov €v Tois Ibiots (rirKnyxvon , eylvvrjirfv avTov pera rfjs
eavrov a'(i(j)ias f^epev^apei/os npo ratv oKaiv .... oTTore bi rjdiXrjafu 6 6e6s noirjaai oca e'/3oi;X€i/<raTo,
ToiiTOV Tov Xoyov eyewTjae npocfinpiKov. TrpoiTOTOKOv nd(Tr]S KTi(Tfa)S. Cld Autol. \\. ID — 22.
Bishop Bull, Defens. F, N. iii. 5 — 8, meets this representation by maintaining that the
yevvrjais which S. Hippolytus and other writers spoke of, was but a metaphorical generation,
the real and eternal truth being shadowed out by a succession of events in the economy
of time, such as is the Resurrection CActs xiii. 2^), nay, the Nativity ; and that of these
His going forth to create the worlds was one. And he maintains (ibid. iii. 9) that such
is the mode of speaking adopted by the Fathers after the Nicene Council as well as before.
And then he adds (which is our present point), that it is even alluded to and recognised
in the Creed of the Council, which anathematizes those who say that ' the Son was not before
His generation,' i.e. who deny that 'the Son was before His generation^ which statement
accordingly becomes indirectly a Catholic truth.
I am not aware whether any writer has preceded or followed this great authority in this
view^ The more obvious mode of understanding the Arian formula is this, that it is an
argument ex absurdo, drawn from the force of the word Son, in behalf of the Arian doctrine ;
it being, as they would say, a truism, that, 'whereas He was begotten, He was not before
He was begotten,' and the denial of it a contradiction in terms. This certainly does seem
to myself, the true force of the formula; so much so, that if Bishop Bull's explanation be
admissible, it must, in order to its being so, first be shewn to be reducible to this sense, and
to be included under it.
The point at issue between the two interpretations is this ; whether the clause irph
yivvr)6rfvai. ovk rju is intended for a denial of the contrary proposition, ' He was before His
generation,' as Bishop Bull says ; or whether it is what Aristode calls an enthymematic
sentence, assuming the falsity, as confessed on all hands, of that contrary proposition, as
self-contradictory, and directly denying, not it, but ' He was from everlasting.' Or, in
other words, whether it opposes the position of the five writers, or the great Cathohc doctrine
itself; and whether in consequence the Nicene Fathers are in their anathema indirectly
sanctioning that position, or stating that doctrine. Bull considers that both sides contemplated
the proposition, 'He was before His generation,'— and that the Catholics asserted or defended
it ; some reasons shall here be given for the contrary view,
I. Now first, let me repeat, what was just now observed by the way, that the formula in question,
when taken as an enthymeraatic sentence, or reditctio ad absurdum, exactly expresses the main argument
of the Arians, which they brought forward in so many shapes, as feeling that their cause turned upon it,
' He is a son, therefore He had a beginning.' Thus Socrates records Arius's words in the beginning of the
controversy, (i) ' If the Father begat the Son, He who is begotten has a beginning of existence; (2) therefore
once the Son was not, ^u ore ovk ^f ; (3) therefore He has His subsistence from nothing, €| ovk bfrwr ex^' '''V''
virocTTacu.' H. E. i. 5. The first of these propositions exactly answers to the ovk i]u ■n\i\v yevrrjOrivai taken
enthymematically ; and it may be added that when so taken, the three propositions will just answer to the three
first formulae anathematized at Nicsea, two of which are indisputably the same as two of them ; viz,, on ^v ttotI
I Waterland expresses the view here taken, and not Bishop
Bull s ; vol. i. p. 114. Bull's language, on the otner hand, is vei-y
strong :' Sa;pe olim, ut verum ingenue fateai, .inimum ineum
subut admiratio, quid effato isto, ' Filius priusquam nasceretur,
non erat,' i/iJi voluerhit Ariani. De nativitate Christi ex beatis-
sima y irgine dictum non esse exponendum constat. . . . Itaque de
nativitate Filii loquuntur, qua? hujus universi creationem ante-
cessit. Quis vero, inquam, seiisus dicti hujus " Filius non erat,
sive non existebat, priusquam nasceretur ex Patre ante conditum
mundumV" Ego sane nullus dubito, quin hoc pronunciatum
Arianorum oppositum fuerit Catholicorurn istorum sententise, qui
docerent, Filiuni quidem paulo ante conditum mundum inexpli-
cabili quodam modo ex Patre progressum fuisse ad constitijeodi'-m
universa, &c. D. F. N. vi. 9, § ?■
IN THE NICENE ANATHEMA. 345
ire ovK Ijv' on irph yevvr]dr)vai ovk ^v oti 4^ ovk ovtwv (y4vero. On the other hand, we hear nothing in
the controversy of the position which Bull conceives to be opposed by Arius (' He was before His generaiion'),
that is, supposing the formula in question does not allude to it ; unless indeed it is worth while to except
the statement reprobated in the Letter of the Arians to Alexander, ovra irponpov, yivp-qdiuTa els viSv, which is
explained, dc Syit. i6, note 12.
2. Next, it should be observed that the other formulce here, as elsewhere, mentioned, are enthymematic also,
or carry their argument with them, and that, an argument resolvable often into the original argument derived
from the word 'Son.' Such are o Sjv rhv fj.7i uvra eK tuv 6i/to^ ^ rhu ovtu; and %v rh ayei'-nroi' fi Svn ; and
in like manner as regards the question of the rpfirrdi' ; ' Has He free will ' (thus Athanasius states the
Arian objection) 'or has He not? is He good from choice according to free will, and can He, if He will,
alter, being of an alterable nature? as wood or stone, has He not His choice free to be moved, and incline
hither and thither?' supr. § 35. That is, they wished the word rpcitThs to carry with it its own self-evi-
dent application to our Lord, with the alternative of an absurdity ; and so to prove His created nature.
3. In § 32, S. Athanasius observes that the formula of the a.y(vr)T<ju was the later substitute for the original
formulas of Arius; 'when they were no longer allowed to say, "out of nothing," and "He v/as not before
His generation,'" they hit upon this word Unoriginate, that, by saying among the simple that the Son was originate,
they f/iight imply the ve7y same phrases " out of nothing" and "He once was not."' Here he does not in
so many words say that the argument from the 'xyivr\Tov was a substitute for the ovk i]v irpXv yei/i'r)9r)vai, yet surely
it is not unfair so to understand him. But it is plain that the a.yei'7)Toi' was brought forward merely to express by
an appeal to philosophy and earlier Fathers, that to be a Son was to have a beginning and a creation, and not
to be God. This therefore will be the sense of the ovk iiv irplv yei't'Tidrji/ai. Nay, when the Arians asked,
* Is the ayiv-qjov one or two,' they actually did assume that it was granted by their opponents that the Father
only was 6.yivr\Tos ; which it was not, if the latter held, nay, if they had sanctioned at Nicosa, as Bull says, that
our Lord ^f irplu ytwridfj ; and moreover which they knew and conlessed was not granted, if their own formula
OVK iiv Trplu yevfrjdrjvai was directed against this statement.
4. Again, it is plain that the ovk i]v irpiu yevvi)Or)vai is used by S. Athanasius as the same objection with
o Ssv rhv /j.ri uvra €k tov dvro^, &c. E.g. he says, ' We might ask tliem in turn, God who is, has He so become,
whereas He was not ? or is He also before His generation ? wheieas He is, did He make Himself, or is He of
nothing, &c., § 25. Now the 0 S)v Thi\iJi7) uvra, &c. , is evidently an argument, and that, grounded on the absurdity
of saying 6 tiv rbu ovra. S. Alexander's Encyclical Letter (vid. Socr. i. 6), compared with Arius's original
positions and the Nicene Anathemas as referred to above, is a strong confirmation. In these three documents
the formulce agree together, except one ; and that one, which in Arius's language is ' he who is begotten
has a beginning of existence,' is in the Nicene Anathema, ovk ■^v ■np]v y€ivy]Qr]vai, but in S. Alexander's circular,
o &V 0€b$ rhu ij.rj ovra iK ruv far) ovros ireTroiTi'iev. The absence of the ovk ^iv irplv, &c., in S. Alexander is certainly
remarkable. Moreover the tvs^o formulae are treated as synonymous by Greg. Naz. 0rat.2(). 9. Cyril, Thesaur. 4.
p. 29 fin., and by Basil as quoted below. But indeed there is an internal correspondence between them,
shewing that they have but one meaning. They are really but the same sentence in the active and in the passive
voice.
5. A number of scattered passages in Athanasius lead us to the same conclusion. For instance, if the Arian
formula had the sense which is here maintained, of being an argument against our Lord's eternity, the Catholic
answer would be, ' He could not be before His generation because His generation is eternal, as being from the
Father.' Now this is precisely the language Athanasius uses, when it occurs to him to introduce the words in
question. Thus in Orat. ii. § 57 he says, ' The creatures began to come to be [yiv^oQaC) ; but the Word of God,
not having beginning {b.px^v) of being, surely did not begin to be, nor begin to come to be, but was always. And
the works have a beginning \h.pyi]v) in the making, and the beginning precedes things which come to be ; but the
Word not being of such, rather Himself becomes the Framer of those things which have a beginning. And tl e
being of things originate is measured by their becoming [iv-rw yiveaOai), and at some beginning (origin) doth G(,d
begin to make them through the Word, that it may be known that they were not before their origination (irpii/
yfveaOai) ; but the Word hath His being in no other origin than the Father' (vid. supr. § li, note i), 'whom
they themselves allow to be unoriginate, so that He too exists unoriginately in the Father, being His offspring not
His creature.' We shall find ^hat other Fathers say just the same. Again, we have already come to a passage
where for 'His generation,' he substitutes 'making,' a word which Bull would not say th.at either the Nicene
Council or S. Hippolytus would use ; clearly shewing that the Arians were not quoting and denying a Catholic
statement in the ovk ^1/ irptv, &c., but laying down one of their own. ' Who is there in all mankind, Greek or
Barbarian, who ventures to rank among creatures One whom he confesses the while to be God, and says that
" He was not ' before He was made,' -rrplv -Troirje;?." ' Orat. i. § 10. Arius, who is surely the best explainer of
his own words, says the same ; that is, he interprets 'generation' by ' making,' or confesses that he is bringing
forward an argument, not opposing a dogma; 'Before His generation,' he says, 'or creation, or destination
{dpiffdfi), Rom. i. 4), or founding (vid. Prov. viii. 23), He was not ; for He was not ingenerate.' Theod. Hist. i. 4.
Eusebius of Nicomedia also, in a passage which has already come before us, says distinctly, ' " It is plain to any
one," that what has been made was not before its generation j but what came to be has an origin of being.' De
Syn. § 17.
6. If there are passages in Athanasius which seem to favour the opposite interpretation, that is, to imply that
the Catholics held or allowed, as Bp. Bull considers, that 'before His generation, He was,' they admit of an
explanation. E.g. "How is He not in the number of the creatures, if, as they say. He was not before His
generation? for it is proper to the creatures and works, not to be before their generation.' Orat. ii. § 22. This
might be taken to imply that the Arians said, ' He was not,' and Catholics ' He was.' But the real meaning is
this, ' How is He not a creature, if i)[\e foi-mitla be true, which they use, " He was not before His generation?"
for it may indeed properly be said of creatures that " they were not before tlteir generation." ' And so again
when he says, 'if the Son was not before His generation, Truth was not always in God,' supr. § 20, he does not
thereby imply that the Son was before His generation, but he means, 'if it be true that, &c.,' ' if the formula
holds,' ' if it can be said of the Son, " He was not, &c." ' Accordingly, shortly afterwards, in a passage already
cited, he says the same of the Almighty Father in the way of parallel ; ' God who is, hath He so become, whereas
He was not, or "is He too before His generation ?' " (§ 25), not implying here any generation at all, but urging
346 NOTE ON 'HE WAS NOT BEFORE HIS GENERATION,'
that the question is idle and irrelevant, that the formula is unmeaning and does not ap,''ly to, cannot be said of,.
Father or Son.
7. Such an explanation of these passages, as well as the view here taken of the formula itself, receive
abundant confirmation from S. Gregory Nazianzen and S. Hilary. What has been maintained is, that when
S. Athanasius says, ' if the Son is not before His generation, then, &c.,' he does but mean, 'if it can be said,^ ' if
the words can be used or applied in this case.' Now the two Fathers just mentioned both decide that it is not
true, either that the Son 'Mas before His generation, or that He was not ; in other words, that the question is
unmeaning and irrelevant, which is just the interpretation which has been here given to Athanasius. IBut again,
in thus speaking, they thereby assert also that they did not hold, that they do not allow, that formula which Bull
considers the Nicene Fathers defended and sanctioned, as being Catholic and in use both before the Council and
after, viz. ' He ivas before His generation.' Thus S. Gregory in the passage in which he speaks of ' did He that
is make Him that is not, &c. ,' and 'before His generation, &c.,' as one and the same, expressly says, 'In His
case, to be begotten is conctirrent with existence and is from the beginning,' and that in contrast to the
instance of men ; who he says, do fulfil in a manner 'He who is, &c. ' (Levi being in the loins of Abraham),
i.e. fulfil Bull's proposition, 'He was before generation.' He proceeds, ' I say that the question is irrelei'ani,
not the answer difficult.' And presently after, mentioning some idle inquiries by way of parallel, he adds, ' more
ill-instructed, be sure, is it to decide whether what was generated froi?i the beginning was or was not before
generation, -"ph t^s 76i'j'T7frfcos.' Orat. 29. 9.
8. S. Hilary, on the other hand, is so full on the subject in his de Trijt. xii., and so entirely to the point for
which I would adduce him, that but a few extracts of what might be made are either necessary or practicable.
He states and argues on the formula expressly as an objection ; Adjiciant hsec arguta satis atque auditu
placentia ; Si, inquit, natus est, coepit ; et cum coepit, non fuit; et cum non fuit, non patitur ut fuerit. Atque
idcirco pise intelligenti^ sermonem esse contendant, Non fuit ante quam nasceretur, qjtia ut esset, qui non erat,
natus est.' n. 18. He answers the objection in the same way, ' Unigenitus Deus neque non fuit aliquando non
filius, neque fuit aliquid ^nte quam filius, neque quidquam aliquid ipse nisi filius,' n. 15, which is in express words
to deny, ' He was before His generation.' Again, as Gregory, ' Ubi pater auctor est, ibi et nativitas est ; et vero
ubi auctor aeternus est, ibi et nativitatis seternitas est,' n. 21. And he substitutes 'being always born ' for 'being
before birth ;' ' Numquid ante tempora seterna esse, id ipsum sit quod est, eum qui erat nasci ? quia nasci quod
erat, jam non nasci est, sed se ipsum demutare nascendo. . . . Non est itaque id ipsum, natum ante tempora
seterna semper esse, et esse antequam nasci.' n. 30. And he concludes, in accordance with the above explanation
of the passages of Athanasius which I brought as if objections, thus : ' Cum itaque natum semper esse, nihil aliud
sit confitendum esse, quam natum, id sensui, antequam wsscxX-m vel fuisse, vel non fuisse non subjacet. n. 31.'
9. It may seem superfluous to proceed, but as Bishop Bull is an authority not lightly to be set aside, a passage
from S. Basil shall be added. Eunomius objects, ' God begat the Son either being or not being, &c. ... to him
that is, there needs not generation.' He replies that Eunomius, '■because animals first are not. and then are
generated, and he who is born to-day, yesterday did not exist, transfers this conception to the subsistence of the
Only-begotten; and says, since He has been generated, He was not before His generation, -upb ttjs y^wiirrfais,'
contr. Eunom. ii. 14. And he solves the objection as the other Fathers, by saying that our Lord is from
everlasting, speaking of S. John, in the first words of his Gospel, as tj d«5»oT7jTt toO ■no.t(ih% ruii fxavoyn'ovs.
iTvfdnTUf tV ')ivvr)(nv. § 15.
These then being the explanations which the contemporary and next following Fathers give
of the Arian formula which was anathematized at Nicaea, it must be observed that the line of
argument which Bishop Bull is pursuing, does not lead him to assign any direct reasons for the
substitution of a different interpretation in their place. He is engaged, not in commenting on
the Nicene Anathema, but in proving that the Post-Nicene Fathers admitted that view or state-
ment of doctrine which he conceives also implied in that anathema ; and thus the sense of
the anathema, instead of being the subject of proof, is, as he believes, one of the proofs of the
point which he is estabhshing. However, since these other collateral evidences which he
adduces, may be taken to be some sort of indirect comment upon the words of the Anathema, the
principal of them in point of authority, and that which most concerns us, shall here be noticed :
it is a passage from the second Oration of Athanasius.
While commenting on the words, apxr] obay eU to. epya in the text, ' The Lord has created
me the beginning of His ways unto the works,' S. Athanasius is led to consider the text ' first
born of every creature,' 7r/jcororoKos micros Krto-fojs ; and he says that He who was fjovoyevrjs from
eternity, became by a o-vyKard^aa-is at the creation of the world Trpo>T6TOKos. This doctrine Bp.
Bull considers declaratory of a going forth, n-poeXeuffts, or figurative h'rlA from the Father, at
the beginning of all things.
It will be observed that the very point to be proved is this, viz. not that there was a
avyKOTti^aais merely, but that according to Athanasius there was a yewrjiris or proceeding from
the Father, and that the word npcoToroKos marks it. Bull's words are, that ' Catholici quidam
Doctores, qui post exortam contfoversiam Arianam vixerunt, . . . illani tov \6yov .... ex
VdXxQ progressionem (quod itlavyKora^aaw, hoc est, condescensionem eorum nonnuUi appellarunt)^
ad condendum hsec universa agnovere j atque ejus etiam progressionis respectu ipsum tov \6yov
a Deo Patre quasi natum fuisse et omnis cxtzXMis. p7'imoge7iitutn in Scripturis dici confessi sunt'
D. F. N. iii. 9. § I. Now I consider that S. Athanasius does not, as this sentence says, under-
stand by primogenitus that our Lord was 'progressionis respectu a Deo Patre quasi natus.'' He
IN THE NICENE ANATHEMA. 347
does not seem to me to speak of a generation or birth of the Son at all, though figurative, bul
of the birth of all things, and that in Him.
That Athanasius does not call the avyKara^affis of the Word a birth, as denoted by the term ttpuitStokos, is
plain from his own avowal in the passage to whicli Bull refers. 'Nowhere in the Scriptures,' he says, 'is He
called TrpooTAruKos tov @eov, first-born of God, nor creature of God, but Only-begotten, Word, Wisdom, have their
relation to the Father, and are proper to Him.' ii. 62. Here surely he expressly denies Bull's statement that
' first-born ' means 'a Deo natus,' 'born of God.' Such additions as napa rod naTphs, he says, are reserved for
fiovoyfuiji and Aoyos.
He goes on to say 7v/ta/ the term TrpairoroKos does me.in ; viz. instead of having any reference to a irpo4\eva-is
from the Father, it refers solely to the creatures ; our Lord is not called irpuroTOKns, because His TrpoeAeucrt. is a
' type of His eternal generation,' but because by that irpoeMvait He became the ' Prototype of all creation.' He,
as it were, stamped His image, His Sonship, upon creation, and became the first-born in the sense of being the
Archetypal Son. If this is borne out by the passage, Athanasius, it is plain, does not speak of any yivvriffis
whatever at the era of creation, though figurative ; TrpooTdroicos does but mean fiovoyevTjs -npaiTevwu iv rrj Kricrei, or
apxv ■'Tjs KTicreois, or Trpitirorvirov yii/urjua, or fiuvus ■jei'^r^rbs iv to7s yevTiToTs ; and no warrant is given, however
indirect, to the idea that in the Nicene Anathema, the Fathers implied an allowance of the proposition, ' He was
before His generation.'
As tlie whole passage occurs in the Discourse which immediately follows, it is not necessary to enter formally
into the proof of this view of it, when the reader will soon be able to judge of it for himself. But it may be well
to add two passages, one from Athenagoras, the other from S. Cyi-il, not in elucidation of the words of Athanasius,
but of the meaning which I would put upon them.
The passage from Athenagoras is quoted by Bull himself, who of course is far from denying the doctrine of
our Lord's Archetypal office ; and does but wish in addition to find in Athanasius the doctrine of a yiyvrjais.
Athenagoras says that the Son is ' the first offspring, irpioTov y^vvrifia, of the Father, not as come to be, yev6tJ.ii>ov
(for God being Eternal Mind had from the beginning in Himself the Word, as having Reason eternally, ^oytKos
ojr), but that while as regards matter heavy and light were mixed together ' (the passage is corrupt here), ' He went
forth, npoiAeiiv, as an ic/ea and ener^}/,' i.e. as an Agent to create, and a Form and Rule to create by. And then
he goes on to quote the very text on which Athanasius is employed when he explains -rrpouTOToKos. ' And the
Prophetic Spirit confirms this doctrine, saying. The Lord hath created me a beginning (origin) of His ways, for
His works.' Ze£. 10.
And so S. Cyril, ' He is Only-begotten according to nature, as being alone from the P^ather, God irom God,
Light kindled from Light ; and He is First- born for our sakes, that, as if to some immortal root the whole creation
might be ingrafted and might bud forth from the Everlasting. For all things were made by Him, and consiU for
ever and z.xe presei-ved in Him.' Thesaur. 25 p. 238.
In conclusion it may be suggested whether the same explanation which has here been
given of Athanasius's use of npfji-roTOKo^ does not avail more exactly to the defence of two of the
live writers from the charge of inaccurate doctrine, than that which Bull has preferred.
As to Athenagoras, we have already seen that he does not speak of a yivvr](n.s at all
in his account of creation, but simply calls the Son npa>Tov yiwrnia, i.e. irpooroTvirou yfwrjfj.a.
Nor does Tatian approach nearer to the doctrine of a yevurjais. He says that at the
creation the Word epyov npojTOTOKov tov Trarpos yiverai. tovtov 'lap-ev tov Koafxov rrjv apxT)V. ad G^r(BC. 5-
Here the word (pyov', which at first sight promises a difficulty, does in fact explain both himself
and Athenagoras. He says that at creation the Word became, yiVenu, not a Sou (figuratively),
as Bull would grant to the parties whom he is opposing, but a work. It was His great conde-
scension, avyKaraiiaiTii, to be accountcd the first of the works, as being their type ; that as they
were to be raised to an adoption and called sons, so He for that purpose might stoop to
creation, and be called a work. As Tatian uses the word apxh in the concluding clause, there
is great reason to think that he is alluding to the very text which Athanasius and Athenagoras
exi^ressly quote, in which Wisdom is said to be ' created a beginning, apx"?, of ways, unto the
works, its TO. tpya.'
As to Novatian, Bishop Bull himself observes that it is a question whether he need be
understood to speak of anv generation but that which is eternal ; nor does Pamehus otherwise
explain him.
DISCOURSE II.
CHAPTER XIV.
Texts explained; Fourthly,
Hebrews iii. 2.
Introduction ; the Regula Fidei counter to an Arian
sense of the text ; which is not supported, by the
word ' servant,' nor by ' made ' which occurs in it ;
(how can the Judge be among the ' works ' which
' God will bring into judgment ? ') nor by ' faithful ; '
and is confuted by the immediate context, which is
about Priestliood ; and by the foregoing passage,
which explains the word ' faithful ' as meaning trust-
worthy, as do I Pet. iv. fin. and other texts. On
the whole made may safely be understood either of
the divine generation or the human creation.
I. I DID indeed think that enough had been
said already against the hollow professors of
Arius's madness, whether for their refutation
or in the truth's behalf, to insure a cessation
and repentance of their evil thoughts and
words about the Saviour. They, however, for
whatever reason, still do not succumb ; but,
as swine and dogs wallow^ in their own vomit
and their own mire, rather invent new ex-
pedients for their irreligion. Thus they mis-
understand the passage in the Proverbs, ' The
Lord hath created me a beginning of His
ways for His works ^,' and the words of the
Apostle, ' Who was faithful to Him that made
Him 3,' and straightway argue, that the Son of
God is a work and a creature. But although
they might have learned from what is said
above, had they not utterly lost their power
of apprehension, that the Son is not from
nothing nor in the number of things originate
at all, the Truth witnessing + it (for, being
God, He cannot be a work, and it is impious
to call Him a creature, and it is of creatures
and works that we say, ' out of nothing,' and
' it was not before its generation '), yet since,
as if dreading to desert their own fiction, they
are accustomed to allege the aforesaid pas-
sages of divine Scripture, which have a good
meaning, but are by them practised on, let us
proceed afresh to take up the question of the
sense of these, to remind the faithful, and to
shew from each of these passages that they
have no knowledge at all of Christianity.
Were it otherwise, they would not have shut
themselves up in the unbeliefs of the present
Jews^, but would have inquired and learned^"
that, whereas ' In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God,' in consequence, it was when at the
good pleasure of the Father the Word became
man, that it was said of Him, as by John,
' The Word became flesh 7 ; ' so by Peter, ' He
hath made Him Lord and Christ^;' — as by
means of Solomon in the Person of the Lord
Himself, ' The Lord created me a beginning
of His ways for His works?;' so by Paul,
'Become so much better than the Angels'°;'
and again, 'He emptied Himself, and took
upon Him the form of a servant";' and
again, 'Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers
of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle
and High Priest of our profession, Jesus, who
was faithful to Him that made Him ".' For
all these texts have the same force and mean-
ing, a religious one, declarative of the divinity
of the Word, even those of them which speak
humanly concerning Him, as having become
the Son of man. But, though this distinction is
sufficient for their refutation, still, since from a
misconception of the Apostle's words (to men-
tion them first), they consider the Word of God
to be one of the works, because of its being
written, 'Who was faithful to Him that made
Him,' I have thought it needful to silence this
further argument of theirs, taking in hand '^^
as before, their statement.
I KuAiojiccoi, Orat. iii. i6. 2 Prov. viii. 22. Cf. i. 53
and infr. 19—72. 3 Heb. iii. 2. 4 Vid. infr. note on 35.
5 Cf. Rom. xi. 32.
* TMv vvv '\ovho.imv, means literally ' the Jews of this day,' as
here and Orat. i. 8. 10. 38. Orat. ii. i. b. iii. 28. c. But else-
where this and similar phrases as distinctly mean the Arians,
being used in contrast to the Jews. Their likeness to the Jews
is drawn out, Orat. iii. 27. de Deer. i.
6^ cpojTwi/Tes kit.a.v^a.vov ; and so fxaOoiv eStSdcTKeVf Orat. iii. 9.
de Deer. 7. S7ipr, p. 13, note a. 7 John i. 14.
8 Acts ii. 36. 9 Prov. viii. 22. 'o Heb. i. 4.
!■ Phil. ii. 7. 12 Heb. iii. i, 2 ; Sent. D. 11.
'3 By kafx^ixvovTe^ Trap* avTO)*/ to \rj[x^a, * accepting the pro-
position they offer,' he means that he is engaged in going through
DISCOURSE II.
349
2. If then He be not a Son, let Him be
called a work, and let all that is said of works
be said of Him, nor let Him and Him alone
be called Son, nor Word, nor Wisdom ;
neither let God be called Father, but only
Framer and Creator of things which by Him
come to be ; and let the creature be Image
and Expression of His framing will, and let
Him, as they would have it, be without gene-
rative nature, so that there be neither Word,
nor Wisdom, no, nor Image, of His proper
substance. For if He be not Son ^, neither is
He Image ^ But if there be not a Son, how
then say you that God is a Creator ? since all
things that come to be are through the Word
and in Wisdom, and without This nothing can
be, whereas you say He hath not That in and
through which He makes all things. For if
the Divine Essence be not fruitful itselfs,
but barren, as they hold, as a light that lightens
not, and a dry fountain, are they not ashamed
to speak of His possessing framing energy?
and whereas they deny what is by nature,
do they not blush to place before it what is by
will 4? But if He frames things that are ex-
ternal to Him and before were not, by willing
them to be, and becomes their Maker, much
more will He first be Father of an Offspring
from His proper Essence. For if they at-
tribute to God the willing about things which
are not, why recognise they not that in God
which lies above the will ? now it is a some-
thing that surpasses will, that He should be
by nature, and should be Father of His proper
Word. If then that which comes first, which
is according to nature, did not exist, as they
would have it in their folly, how could that
which is second come to be, which is according
to will? for the Word is first, and then the crea-
certain texts brought against the Catholic view, instead of bringin;^
his own proofs, vid. Orat. i. 37. Yet after all it is commonly his
way, as here, to start with some general exposition of the Catholic
doctrine which the Arian sense of the text in question opposes, and
thus to create a prejudice or proof against the latter, vid. Orat.
i. 10. 38. 40. init. 53. d. ii. 5. 12. init. 32 — 34. 35. 44. init. which
refers to the whole discussion, 18 — 43. 73. 77. iii 18. init. 36. init.
42. 54. 51. init. &c. On the other hand he makes the ecclesiastical
sense the rule of interpretation, tovtw [tw (Tkoitw, the general drift
of Scripture doctrine] lixrwep xai/oi/t xprja-ifievoi irpoo-e'^aj/iei/ rrj
avdyvuxrei T>")9 6iOTrviv<rTOV ypa<j)ri?, iii. 28. fin. This illustrates
what he means when he says that certain texts have a 'good,'
' pious,' 'orthodox' sense, i.e. they can be interpreted (in spite, if
so be, of appearances) in harmony with the Regula Fidei. vid.
infr. % 43, note ; also notes on 35. and iii. 581
^ § 22, note.
* i.e. in any true sense of the word 'Image ;' or, so that He
may be accounted the airopaAAaKTo; et/ccoj' of the Father, vid.
de Syn. 23, note i. The ancient Fathers consider, that the Divine
Sonship is the very consequence (so to speak) of the necessity that
exists, that One who is Infinite Perfection should subsist again in
a Perfect Image of Himself, which is the doctrine to which Athan.
goes on to allude, and the idea of which (he says) is prior to that
of creation. A redundatio in imaginem is synonymous with a
generatio Filii. Cf. Thomassin, de Trin. 19. i.
3 For KapTTO-yoi/o? 17 oucta, de Deer. 15. n. q. ■yei/i^ijTtKo?, Orat,
iii. 66. iv. 4. fin. dyoi'os. i. 14. fin. Sent. Dion. 15. 19. 7) ^vtriKi)
yoiiiix6-r\<;, Daiiiasc. F. O. i. 8 p. 133. oi/fopTros, Cyr. Tlies. p. 45.
Epiph. Hcfr. 65 p. 609. b. Vid. the ■yeVi'ij<ris and the kti'o-is con-
trasted together Orat. i. 29. de Deer, n, n. 6, de Syn. 51, n. 4.
The doctrine in the text is shortly expressed, in/r. Orat. iv. 4 fin.
ti ayovoi koX avevepyrjroi. 4 Oral, iii. 59, &c.
tion. On the contrary the Word exists, what-
ever they affirm, those irreligious ones ; for
through Him did creation come to be, and God,
as being Maker, plainly has also His framing
Word, not external, but proper to Him ; —
for this must be repeated. If He has the
power of will, and His will is effective, and
suffices for the consistence of the things that
come to be, and His Word is effective, and
a Framer, that Word must surely be the
living Wills of the Father, and an essential^
energy, and a real Word, in whom all
things both consist and are excellently go-
verned. No one can even doubt, that He
who disposes is prior to the disposition and
the things disposed. And thus, as I said,
God's creating is second to His begetting ;
for Son implies something proper to Him
and truly from that blessed and everlasting
Essence ; but what is from His will, comes
into consistence from without, and is framed
through His proper Offspring who is from It.
3. As we have shewn then they are guilty
of great extravagance who say that the Lord
is not Son of God, but a work, and it fol-
lows that we all of necessity confess that He
is Son. And if He be Son, as indeed He
is, and a son is confessed to be not external
to his father but from him, let them not
question about the terms, as I said before,
which the sacred writers use of the Word Him-
self, viz. not ' to Him that begat Him,' but
' to Him that made Him ; ' for while it is con-
fessed what His nature is, what word is used
in such instances need raise no question 7.
For terms do not disparage His Nature; rather
that Nature draws to Itself those terms and
changes them. For terms are not prior to
essences, but essences are first, and terms
second. Wherefore also when the essence
is a work or creature, then the words ' He
made,' and ' He became,' and ' He created,'
are used of it properly, and designate the
work. But when the Essence is an Off-
spring and Son, then ' He made,' and ' He
became,' and ' He created,' no longer pro-
perly belong to it, nor designate a work ; but
'He made' we use without question for 'He
begat.' Thus fathers often call the sons born
of them their servants, yet without denying
the genuineness of their nature ; and often
they affectionately call their own servants
children, yet without putting out of sight their
purchase of them originally ; for they use the
one appellation from their authority as being
fathers, but in the other they speak from af-
fection. Thus Sara called Abraham lord,
though not a servant but a wife ; and while to
5 Orat. iii. 63, c.
? § I, note 13,
6 ivov<n.oi, infr. 28.
350
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
Philemon the master the Apostle joined Onesi-
mus the servant as a brother, Bathsheba, al-
though mother, called her son servant, saying
to his father, 'Thy servant Solomon^;' —
afterwards also Nathan the Prophet came in
and repeated her words to David, ' Solomon
thy servant 9.' Nor did they mind calling
the son a servant, for while David heard it,
he recognised the ' nature,' and while they
spoke it, they forgot not the ' genuineness,'
praying that he might be made his father's heir,
to whom they gave the name of servant ; for
to David he was son by nature.
4. As then, when we read this, we interpret
it fairly, without accounting Solomon a servant
because we hear him so called, but a son
natural and genuine, so also, if, concerning
the Saviour, who is confessed to be in truth
the Son, and to be the Word by nature,
the saints say, 'Who was faithful to Him
that made Him,' or if He say of Himself,
' The Lord created me,' and, ' I am Thy
servant and the Son of Thine handmaid^,' and
the like, let not any on this account deny that
He is proper to the Father and from Him ;
but, as in the case of Solomon and David, let
them have a right idea of the Father and the
Son, For if, though they hear Solomon called
a servant, they acknowledge him to be a son,
are they not deserving of many deaths^, who,
instead of preserving the same explanation
in the instance of the Lord, whenever they
hear 'Offspring,' and 'Word,' and 'Wisdom,'
forcibly misinterpret and deny the generation,
natural and genuine, of the Son from the
Father; but on hearing words and terms
proper to a work, forthwith drop down to the
notion of His being by nature a work, and
deny the Word; and this, though it is possible,
from His having been made man, to refer
all these terms to His humanity? And are
they not proved to be ' an abomination ' also
' unto the Lord,' as having ' diverse weights 3 '
with them, and with this estimating those
other instances, and with that blaspheming the
Lord? But perhaps they grant that the word
'servant' is used under a certain understanding,
but lay stress upon 'Who made' as some
great supjDort of their heresy. But this stay of
theirs also is but a broken reed ; for if they
are aware of the style of Scripture, they must
at ■ once give sentence against ^ themselves.
For as Solomon, though a son, is called a
servant, so, to repeat what was said above,
although parents call the sons springing from
themselves ' made ' and ' created ' and ' be-
coming,' for all this they do not deny their
« I Kings i. 19. ?, '^='^- 26. I Ps. cxvi. 16.
2 -TToAAaKt? anoKojK^vai otKatOi, vid. i7ifr, § 28.
3 Prov. XX. 23 4 Apol. c. Ar. 36.
nature. Thus Hezekiah, as it is written
in Isaiah, said in his prayer, ' From this
day I will make children, who shall de-
clare Thy righteousness, O God of my sal-
vations.' He then said, 'I will make;' but
the Prophet in that very book and the Fourth
of Kings, thus speaks, ' And the sons who
shall come forth of thee^.' He uses then
' make ' for ' beget,' and he calls them who
were to spring from him, ' made,' and no one
questions whether the term has reference to
a natural offspring. Again, Eve on bearing Cain
said, '1 have gotten a man from the Lord?;'
thus she too used ' gotten ' for ' brought forth.'
For, first she saw the child, yet next she said,
' I have gotten.' Nor would any one consider,
because of ' I have gotten,' that Cain was
purchased from without, instead of being born
of her. Again, the Patriarch Jacob said to
Joseph, 'And now thy two sons, Ephraim
and Manasseh, which became thine in Egypt,
before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mme^.'
And Scripture says about Job, 'And there
came to him seven sons and three daughters 9.'
As Moses too has said in the Law, 'If sons
become to any one,' and ' If he make a son'°.'
Here again they speak of those who are be-
gotten, as ' become ' and ' made,' knowing
that, while they are acknowledged to be sons,
we need not make a question of ' they be-
came,' or 'I have gotten,' or 'I made".' For
nature and truth draw the meaning to them-
selves.
5. This being so^, when persons ask whether
the Lord is a creature or work, it is proper to
ask of them this first, whether He is Son and
Word and Wisdom. For if this is shewn, the
surmise about work and creation falls to the
ground at once and is ended. For a work
could never be Son and Word ; nor could the
Son be a work. And again, this being the
state of the case, the proof is plain to all, that
the phrase, 'To Hmi who made Him' does
not serve their heresy, but rather condemns it.
For it has been shewn that the expression
' He made ' is applied in divine Scripture even
to children genuine and natural; whence, the
Lord being proved to be the Father's Son
naturally and genuinely, and Word, and Wis-
dom, though ' He made ' be used concerning
Him, or ' He became,' this is not said of
Him as if a work, but the saints make no
question about using the expression, — for
instance in the case of Solomon, and Heze-
5 Is. xxxviii. 19, LXX. * 2 Kings xx. 18 ; Is. xxxix. 7.
7 Gen. iv. i, and in/r. 44. note on Qana. 8 Gen. xlviii. 5,
LXX. 9 JoD i. 2, LXX. 1° Cf. Deat. xxi. 15 ;
vid. Lev. xxv. 21, LXX. " Strap, ii. 6. b.
1 That is, while the style of Scripture justifies us in thus in-
terpreting the word ' made/ doctrinal truth obiif^es us to do so.
He considers the Regula Ficlei the principle of interpretation, and
accordingly he goes on at once to apply it. vid. supr. § i, note 13.
DISCOURSE II.
351
kiah's children. For though the fathers had
begotten them from themselves, still it is
written, 'I have made,' and *I have gotten,'
and ' He became.' Therefore God's enemies,
in spite of their repeated allegation of such
phrases =, ought now, though late in the day,
after what has been said, to disown their
irreligious thoughts, and think of the Lord
as of a true Son, Word, and Wisdom of the
Father, not a work, not a creature. For if
the Son be a creature, by what word then
and by what wisdom was He made Him-
self 3? for all the works were made through
the Word and the Wisdom, as it is written,
* In wisdom hast Thou made them all,' and,
^ All things were made by Him, and without
Him was not anything made+.' But if it be
He who is the Word and the Wisdom, by
which all things come to be, it follows that
He is not in the number of works, nor in
short of things originate, but the Oifspring of
the Father.
6. For consider how grave an error it is, to
call God's Word a work. Solomon says in one
place in Ecclesiastes, that ' God shall bring
€very work into judgment, with every secret
thing, whether it be good or whether it be
€vil^.' If then the Word be a work, do you
mean that He as well as others will be brought
into judgment ? and what room is there for
judgment, when the Judge is on trial ? who
will give to the just their blessing, who to the
unworthy their punisliment, the Lord, as you
must suppose, standing on trial with the rest ?
by what law shall He, the Lawgiver, Himself
be judged? These things are proper to the
works, to be on trial, to be blessed and to be
punished by the Son. Now then fear the
Judge, and let Solomon's words convince you.
For if God shall bring the works one and all
into judgment, but the Son is not in the
number of things put on trial, but rather is
Himself the Judge of works one and all, is not
the proof clearer than the sun, that the Son is
not a work but the Father's Word, in whom all
the works both come to be and come into judg-
ment? Further, if the expression, ' Whowasfaith-
ful,' is a difficulty to them, from the thought
that ' faithful ' is used of Him as of others, as
if He exercises faith and so receives the reward
•of faith, they must proceed at this rate to find
fault with Moses for saying, ' God faithful and
true %' and with St. Paul for writing, ' God is
faithful, who will not sufter you to be tempted
above that ye are able 3.' But when the saints
^poke thus, they were not thinking of God
« Ae|etSia, Orat. iii. 59. a Sent. D. 4. c
3 Orat. iii. 62 init. infr. § 22, note. 4 Ps. civ. 24 ; John i. 3.
' Eccles. xii. 14. 2 Combines Greek of Deut. xxxii. 4
and Ex. xxxiv. 6 ; cf. Rev. iii. 14. 3 i Cor. x. 13.
in a human way, but they acknowledged two
senses of the word ' faithful ' in Scripture,
first 'believing,' then ' trustworthy,' of which the
former belongs to man, the latter to God.
Thus Abraham was faithful, because He be-
lieved God's word ; and God faithful, for, as
David says in the Psalm, ' The Lord is faithful
in all His words 4/ or is trustworthy, and can-
not lie. Again, ' If any faithful woman have
widows s,' she is so called for her right faith ;
but, * It is a faithful saying^,' because what He
hath spoken has a claim on our faith, for it is
true, and is not otherwise. Accordingly the
words, ' Who is faithful to Him that made
Him,' implies no parallel with others, nor
means that by having faith He became well-
pleasing; but that, being Son of the True
God, He too is faithful, and ought to be be-
Ueved in all He says and does, Himself re-
maining unalterable and not changed ^ in His
human Economy and fleshly presence.
7, Thus then we may meet these men who
are shameless, and from the single expression
' He made,' may shew that they err in thinking
that the Word of God is a work. But further,
since the drift also of the context is orthodox,
shewing the time and the relation to which
this expression points, I ought to shew from it
also how the heretics lack reason ; viz. by con-
sidering, as we have done above, the occasion
when it was used and for what purpose. Now
the Apostle is not discussing things before the
creation when he thus speaks, but when ' the
Word became flesh;' for thus it is written,
'Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the
heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and
High Priest of our profession Jesus, who was
faithful to Him that made Him.' Now when
became He ' Apostle,' but when He put on
our flesh? and when became He ' High Priest
of our profession,' but when, after offering
Himself for us. He raised His Body from the
dead, and, as now. Himself brmgs near and
offers to the Father those who in faith ap-
proach Him, redeeming all, and for all pro-
pitiating God ? Not then as wishing to signify
the Essence of the Word nor His natural
generation from the Father, did the Apostle
say, ' Who was faithful to Him that made
Him' — (perish the thought! for the Word is
not made, but makes) — but as signifying His
4 Ps. cxlv. 14. LXX. S I Tim. v. i6. 6 Tit. iii. 8, &c.
7 aTpei7TOS Kdt l>-y\ aAAoiov/xei'O?; vid. suj')r. de Deer. 14. it was
the tendency of Arianism to consider that iu the Incarnation some
such change actually was undergone by the Word, as tliey had
from Uie first maintained in the abstract was possible ; that whereas
He was in nature rpeirrbs, He uas in/act aAAoiou/xti'o?. This was
implied in tlie doctrme that His superhuman nature supplied the
place of a soul in His manhood. Hence the semi-Arian ijirmian
Creed anathematizes those who said, t6i/ Adyoi/ rpoirrji/ v7roju,e/aec»j-
KoTa, vid. Z)e Syii. 27. 12). ' This doctrine connected them with
the Apollinarian and Emychian Schools, to the former of which
Athan. compares them, , >nir. ApoU. i. 12. while, as opposing the
latter, Theodoret entities his first Dialogue 'ATpeTrro?.
3?2
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
descent to mankind and High-priesthood which
did 'become'— as one may easily see from
the account given of the Law and of Aaron.
I mean, Aaron was not born a high-priest, but
a man ; and in process of time, when God
willed, he became a high-priest ; yet became
so, not simply, nor as betokened by his or-
dinary garments, but putting over them the
ephod, the breastplate ', the robe, which the
women wrought at God's command, and going
in them into the holy place, he offered the
sacrifice for the people ; and in them, as it
were, mediated between the vision of God and
the sacrifices of men. Thus then the Lord
also, ' In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God ;'
but when the Father willed that ransoms
should be paid for all and to all, grace should
be given, then truly the Word, as Aaron his
robe, so did He take earthly flesh, having
Mary for the Mother of His Body as if virgin
earth % that, as a High Priest, having He as
others an offering. He might offer Himself to
the Father, and cleanse us all from sins in His
own blood, and might rise from the dead.
8. tor what happened of old was a shadow
of this ; and what the Saviour did on His
coming, this Aaron shadowed out according to
the Law. As then Aaron was the same and
did not change by putting on the high-priestly
dress 3, but remaining the same was only robed,
so that, had any one seen him offering, and
had said, ' Lo, Aaron has this day become
high-priest,' he had not implied that he then
had been born man, for man he was even
before he became high-priest, but that he had
been made high-priest in his ministry, on
putting on the garments made and prepared
for the high-priesthood ; in the same way it is
possible in the Lord's instance also to under-
stand aright, that He did not become other
than Himself on taking the flesh, but, being
the same as before. He was robed in it ; and
the expressions ' He became ' and ' He was
made,' must not be understood as if the Word,
1 Exod. xxix. 5.
2 avepyda-TOv yrjs is an allusion to Adam's formation from the
ground ; and so Irenseus, Hter. iii. 21. fin. and many later fathers.
3 This is one of those distinct and luminous protests by antici-
pation against Nestorianism, which in consequence may be abused
to the purpose of the opposite heresy. Such expressions as Trcpiri-
Bd/jLevo'; Trjv io'BrJTa, eKaAuTrreTo, ivSva-dixevoi (ruifi.a, were familiar
with the Apollinarians, against whom .S. Athanasius is, if possible,
even more decided. Theodoret objects Hier, v. n. p. 422. to the
word ■npoKo.Kvii.^i.a., as applied to our Lord's manhood, as implying
that He had no soul ; vid. also Naz. Ep. 102. fin. (ed. 1840). In
Naz. £p. loi. p. 90. napaTveTaiTfi.a. is used to denote an Apolli-
iiarian idea. Such expressions were taken to imply that Christ
was not in nature man, only in some sense htniian ; not a sub-
.stance, but an appearance ; yet pseudo-Athan. contr. Sabell. Greg.
4. has 7rapa7re7reTa(7ne'i'7)i' and KaMififJia, ibid. init. S Cyril. Hieros.
/caraTrA-aer/ixa, Catech. xii. 26. xiii. 32. after Hebr. X. 20. and
Athan. ad Adelph. 5. e. Theodor. vapaTriTatrtxa, Eran. i. p. 22.
and TrpoKaKvti-ixa, ibid. p. 23. and aa'zi. Gent. vi. p. 877 and (ttoAjj,
Eran. 1. c. S. Leo has caro Christi velamen, Ej>. 59. p. 979. vid.
also Serin. 22. p. 70. Serin. 25. p. 84.
considered as the Word 3«, were made, but that
the Word, being Framer of all, afterwards * was
made High Priest, by putting on a body which
was originate and made, and such as He can
offer for us ; wherefore He is said to be made.
If then indeed the Lord did not become man s,
that is a point for the Arians to battle ; but it
the * Word became flesh,' what ought to have
been said concerning Him when become man,
but 'Who was faithful to Him that made
Him ?' for as it is proper to the Word to have
it said of Him, ' In the beginning was the
Word,' so it is proper to man to ' become '
and to be 'made.' Who then, on seeing the
Lord as a man walking about, and yet ap-
pearing to be God from His works, would
not have asked. Who made Him man ? and
who again, on such a question, would not
have answered, that the Father made Him
man, and sent Him to us as High Priest?
And this meaning, and time, and character,
the Apostle himself, the writer of the words,
' Who is faithful to Him that made Him,' will
best make plain to us, if we attend to what
goes before them. For there is one train of
thought, and the lection is all about One and
the Same. He writes then in the Epistle to
the Hebrews thus ; ' Forasmuch then as the
children are partakers of flesh and blood. He
also Himself likewise took part of the same ;
that through death He might destroy him that
had the power of death, that is, the devil ; and
deliver them who through fear of death were
all their Hfetime subject to bondage. For
verily He took not on Him the nature of
Angels ; but He took on Him the seed of
Abiaham. Wherefore in all things it behoved
3» fi Ad-yo5 €o-Ti. cf. i. 43. Orat. ii. 74. e. iii. 38 init. 39. b. 41
init. 45 init. 52. b. iv. 23. f.
4 The Arians considered that our Lord's Priesthood preceded
His Incarnation, and belonged to His Divine Nature, and was
in consequence the token of an inferior divinity. The notice of it
therefore in this text did but confirm them in their interpretatior*
of the words made, ^t'c. For the Arians, vid. Epiph. Hter. 6g, 37.
Eusebius too -had distinctly declared, Qui videbatur, erat agnus
Dei ; qui occultabatur sacerdos Dei. advers. Sabell. i. p. 2. 0.
vid. also Deinonst. i. 10. p. 38. iv. 16. p. 1^3. v. 3. p 223. contr.
Marc. pp. 8 and g. 66. 74. 95. Even S. Cyril of Jerusalem makes
a similar admission, Catech. x. 14. Nay S. Ambrose calls the
Word, plenum justitieC sacerdotalis, defug. scec. 3. 14. S. Clement
Alex, before them speaks once or twice of the Aoyos apxiepeus,
e.g. Strom, ii. 9 fin. and Philo still earlier uses similar language,
de Profug. p. 466. (whom S. Ambrose follows), de Soiiiniis p. 597.
vid. Thomassin. de Incarn. x. 9. Nestorius on the other hand
maintained that the Man Christ Jesus was the Priest, relying on
the text which has given rise to this note ; Cyril, adv. Nest. p. 64.
and Augustine and Fulgentius may be taken to countenance him,
de Consens. and Evang. i. 6. ad Thrasim. iii. 30. The Catholic
doctrine is, that the Divine Word is Priest in and according to
His manliood. vid. the parallel use of 7rpwTOTOKO<;, infr. 62—64.
'As He is called Prophet and even Apostle for His humanity,'
says S. Cyril Alex. ' so also Priest.' Gla/>h. ii. p. 58. and so
Epiph. loc. cit. Thomassin loc. cit. makes a distinction between
a divine Priesthood or Mediatorship, such as the Word may be
said to sustain between the Father and all creatures, and an earthly
one for the sake of sinners, vid. also Huet Origenian. ii. 3. § 4, 5.
For the history of the controversy among Protestants as to the
Nature to which His Mediatorship belongs, vid. Petav. Incarn,
xii. 3. 4. [Herzog-Plitt Art. Stancar.]
5 [One of the few passages in which Ath. glances at the Arian
Christology. A long note is omitted here on the subject of Or, L
8, note 3.]
\
DISCOURSE II.
353
Him to be made like unto His brethren, that
He might be a merciful and faithful High
Priest in things pertaining to God, to make
reconcihation for the sins of the people. For
in that He Himself hath suffered being
tempted, He is able to succour them that are
tempted. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers
of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle
and High Priest of our profession, Jesus ; who
was faithful to Him that made Him^.'
9. Who can read this whole passage without
condemning the Arians, and admiring the
blessed Apostle, who has spoken well? for
when was Christ ' made,' when became He
' Apostle,' except when, like us, He ' took part
in flesh and blood?' And when became He
' a merciful and faithful High Priest,' except
when 'in all things He was made like unto
His brethren ? ' And then was He * made like,'
when He became man, having put upon Him
our flesh. Wherefore Paul was writing con-
cerning the Word's human Economy, when he
said, 'Who was faithful to Him that made
Him,' and not concerning His Essence. Have
not therefore any more the madness to say
that the Word of God is a work; whereas
He is Son by nature Only-begotten, and then
had ' brethren,' when He took on Him flesh
like ours ; which moreover, by Himself offer-
ing Himself, He was named and became 'mer-
ciful and faithful,' — merciful, because in mercy
to us He offered Himself for us, and faithful,
not as sharing faith with us, nor as having
faith in any one as we have, but as deserving
to receive faith in all He says and does, and
as offering a faithful sacrifice, one which re-
mains and does not come to nought For
those which were offered according to the
Law, had not this faithfulness, passing away
with the day and needing a further cleansing ;
but the Saviour's sacrifice, taking place once,
has perfected everything, and is become faithful
as remaining for ever. And Aaron had suc-
cessors, and in a word the priesthood under
the Law exchanged its first ministers as time
and death went on ; but the Lord having
a high priesthood without transition and with-
out succession, has become a ' faithful High
Priest,' as continuing for ever; and faithful
too by promise, that He may hear? and not
mislead those who come to Him. This may
be also learned from the Epistle of the great
Peter, who says, 'Let them that suffer ac-
cording to the will of God, commit their
souls to a faithful Creator^.' For He is
faithful as not changing, but abiding ever,
and rendering what He has promised.
6 Heb. ii. 14 — 18 ; iii. 2. ^ Or, answer, vid. infr. iii. 97.
8 I Pet. iv. 19.
VOL IV.
10. Now the so-called gods of the Greeks,
unworthy the name, are faithful neither in
their essence nor in their promises ; for the
same are not everywhere, nay, the local deities
come to nought in course of time, and undergo
a natural dissolution ; wherefore the Word
cries out against them, that 'faith is not strong
in them,' but they are ' waters that fail,' and
'there is no faith in them.' But the God of
all, being one really and indeed and true, is
faithful, who is ever the same, and says, ' See
now, that I, even I am He,' and I ' change
not';' and therefore His Son is 'faithful,'
being ever the same and unchanging, deceiving
neither in His essence nor in His promise ; —
as again says the Apostle writing to the Thes-
salonians, ' Faithful is He who calleth you,
who also will do it^ ; ' for in doing what He
promises. He is faithful to His words. And
he thus writes to the Hebrews as to the word's
meaning ' unchangeable ; ' ' If we believe not,
yet He abideth faithful; He cannot deny
Himself3.' Therefore reasonably the Apostle,
discoursing concerning the bodily presence of
the Word, says, an 'Apostle and faithful to
Him that made Him,' shewing us that, even
when made man, ' Jesus Christ ' is ' the same
yesterday, and to-day, and for ever+' is un-
changeable. And as the Apostle makes men-
tion in his Epistle of His being made man
when mentioning His High Priesthood, so too
he kept no long silence about His Godhead,
but rather mentions it forthwith, furnishing
to us a safeguard on every side, and most
of all when he speaks of His humihty, that
we may forthwith know His loftiness and
His majesty which is the Father's. For in-
stance, he says, 'Moses as a servant, but
Christ as a SonS;' and the former 'faithful
in his house,' and the latter ' over the house,*
as having Himself built it, and being its Lord
and Framer, and as God sanctifying it. For
Moses, a man by nature, became faithful, in
believing God who spoke to Him by His Word;
but^ the Word was not as one of things ori-
ginate in a body, nor as creature in creature,
but as God in flesh?, and Framer of all and
Builder in that which was built by Him.
And men are clothed in flesh in order to be
and to subsist ; but the Word of God was
made man in order to sanctify the flesh, and,
though He was Lord, was in the form of
a servant; for the whole creature is the
I Vid. Jct. ix. 3. and xv. 18 ; Deut. xxxii. 20, LXX. ; ib. xxxiL
39 ; Mai. iii. 6. ^ i Thess. v. 24. 3 2 Tim. ii. 13.
4 Heb. xiii. 8. 5 Heij. iii. 5, 6.
6 Here is a protest beforehand against the Monophysite doc-
trine, but such anticipations of various heresies are too frequent,
as we proceed, to require or bear notice.
7 8eos iv trapKl, vid. Aoyos ev <t. iii. 54. a. 8. iv <rw^aTi, ii. 12.
c. 15. a. A. iv o-iiju. Sent. D. 8 fin.
A a
354
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
Word's servant, which by Him came to be,
and was made.
II. Hence it holds that the Apostle's ex-
pression, ' He made,' does not prove that the
Word is made, but that body, which He took
like ours ; and in consequence He is called
our brother, as having become man. But if
it has been shewn, that, even though the word
' made ' be referred to the Very Word, it is
used for * begat,' what further perverse ex-
pedient will they be able to fall upon, now
that the present discussion has cleared up the
word in every point of view, and shewn that
the Son is not a work, but in Essence indeed
the Father's offspring, while in the Economy,
according to the good pleasure^ of the Father,
He was on our behalf made, and consists as
man ? For this reason then it is said by the
Apostle, ' Who was faithful to Him that made
Him ; ' and in the Proverbs, even creation
is spoken of. For so long as we are con-
fessing that He became man, there is no
question about saying, as was observed before,
whether 'He became,' or *He has been made,'
or ' created,' or ' formed,' or ' servant,' or ' son
of an handmaid,' or ' son of man,' or ' was
constituted,' or 'took His journey,' or 'bride-
groom,' or ' brother's son,' or ' brother.' All
these terms happen to be proper to man's
constitution ; and such as these do not de-
signate the Essence of the Word, but that He
has become man.
CHAPTER XV.
Texts Explained ; Fifthly, Acts ii. 36.
The Regula Fidei must be observed ; made applies to
our Lord's manhood ; and to His manifestation ; and
to His office relative to us ; and is relative to the
Jews. Parallel instance in Gen. xxvii. 29, 37. The
context contradicts the Arian interpretation.
1 1 {continued). The same is the meaning of
the passage in the Acts which they also allege,
that in which Peter says, that ' He hath made
both Lord and Christ that same Jesus whom
ye have crucified.' For here too it is not
written, ' He made for Himself a Son,' or ' He
made Himself a Word,' that they should have
such notions. If then it has not escaped their
memory, that they speak concerning the Son of
God, let them make search whether it is any-
where written. ' God made Himself a Son,' or
' He created for Himself a Word ; ' or again,
whether it is anywhere written in plain terms,
' The Word is a work or creation ; ' and then
let them proceed to make their case, the in-
sensate men, that here too they may receive
their answer. But if they can produce nothing
* K9.T €vSoKtay Orat. iii. 64. init.
of the kind, and only catch at such stray
expressions as ' He made' and 'He has been
made,' I fear lest, from hearing, 'In the be-
ginning God made the heaven and the earth,'
and ' He made the sun and the moon,' and
' He made the sea,' they should come in
time to call the Word the heaven, and the
Light which took place on the first day, and the
earth, and each particular thing that has been
made, so as to end in resembling the Stoics, as
they are called, the one drawing out their God
into all things', the other ranking God's Word
with each work in particular ; which they have
well nigh done already, saying that He is one
of His works.
12. But here they must have the same
answer as before, and first be told that the
Word is a Son, as has been said above % and
not a work, and that such terms are not to be
understood of His Godhead, but the reason and
manner of them investigated. To persons who
so inquire, the human Economy will plainly
present itself, which He undertook for our sake.
For Peter, after saying, ' He hath made Lord
and Christ,' straightway added, ' this Jesus
whom ye crucified ; ' which makes it plain to
any one, even, if so be, to them, provided they
attend to the context, that not the Essence
of the Word, but He according to His man-
hood is said to have been made. For what
was crucified but the body? and how could be
signified what was 'bodily in the Word, except
by saying ' He made ? ' Especially has that
phrase, ' He made,' a meaning consistent with
orthodoxy ; in that he has not said, as I
observed before, ' He made Him Word,' but
' He made Him Lord,' nor that in general
terms3, but * towards ' us, and ' in the midst of
us, as nmch as to say, ' He manifested Him.'
And this Peter himself, when he began this
primary teaching, carefully 4 expressed, when
he said to them, 'Ye men of Israel, hear these
words : Jesus of Nazareth, a man manifested
of God towards you by miracles, and wonders,
and signs, which God did by Him in the midst
of you, as ye yourselves know s.' Consequently
the term which he uses in the end, 'made,'
this He has explained in the beginning by
' manifested,' for by the signs and wonders
which the Lord did. He was manifested to be
not merely man, but God in a body and Lord
also, the Christ. Such also is the passage in
the Gospel according to John, ' Therefore the
more did the Jews persecute Him, because He
not only broke the Sabbath, but said also
that God was His own Father, making Himself
' Brucker de Zenon. § 7. n. 14. * § i, note 13. 3 aTrAius.
4 /aera ■na.pa.n\(fr\aiio<i. vid. infr. 44. e. 59. b. 71.6. Orat. iii. 5a. b.
5 Acts ii. 22.
DISCOURSE 11.
355
equal vith God ^.* For the Lord did not then
fashion Himself to be God, nor indeed is a
made God conceivable, but He manifested it
by the works, saying, ' Though ye believe not
Me, believe My works, that ye may know that
I am in the Father, and the Father in Me 7.'
Thus then the Father has 'made* Him Lord
and King in the midst of us, and towards us
who were once disobedient ; and it is plain
that He who is now displayed as Lord and
King, does not then begin to be King and Lord,
. but begins to shew His Lordship, and to extend
it even over the disobedient.
13. If then they suppose that the Saviour
was not Lord and King, even before He became
man and endured the Cross, but then began to
be Lord, let them know that they are openly
reviving the statements of the Samosatene.
But if, as we have quoted and declared above,
He is Lord and King everlasting, seeing that
Abraham worships Him as Lord, and Moses
says, ' Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and
upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the
Lord out of heaven ^ ;' and David in the
Psalms, 'The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit
Thou on My right hand 9;' and, ' Thy Throne,
O God, is for ever and ever ; a sceptre of
righteousness is the sceptre of Thy Kingdom '°;'
and, 'Thy Kingdom is an everlasting King-
dom" ;' it is plain that even before He became
man, He was King and Lord everlasting, being
Image and Word of the Father. And the Word
being everlasting Lord and King, it is very
plain again that Peter said not that the Es-
sence of the Son was made, but spoke of His
Lordship over us, which ' became ' when He
became man, and, redeeming all by the Cross,
became Lord of all and King. But if they
continue the argument on the ground of its
being written, ' He made,' not wilUng that ' He
made ' should be taken in the sense of ' He
manifested,' either from want of apprehension,
or from their Christ-opposing purpose, let them
attend to another sound exposition of Peter's
words. For he who becomes Lord of others,
comes into the possession of beings already in
existence ; but if the Lord is Framer of all and
everlasting King, and when He became man,
then gained possession of us, here too is a way
in which Peter's language evidently does not
signify that the Essence of the Word is a work,
but the after-subjection of all things, and the
Saviour's Lordship which came to be over all.
And this coincides with what we said before"" ;
for as we then introduced the words, ' Become
my God and defence,' and 'the Lord became a
* John V. 16, i8.
8 Gen. xix. 24.
" Ps. cxlv. 13.
7 John X. 38. not to the letter.
9 Ps. ex. I. 10 Ps. xlv. 6.
"» § 62, cf. Serm. Maj. tie Fid. i.
refuge for the oppressed ",' and it stood to
reason that these expressions do not shew that
God is originate, but that His beneficence
' becomes ' towards each individual, the same
sense has the expression of Peter also.
14. For the Son of God indeed, b^ing Him-
self the Word, is Lord of all; but we once were
subject from the first to the slavery of corrup-
tion and the curse of the Law, then by degrees
fashioning for ourselves things that were not,
we served, as says the blessed Apostle, ' them
which by nature are no Gods %' and, ignorant of
the true God, we preferred things that were not
to the truth ; but afterwards, as the ancient
people when oppressed in Egypt groaned, so,
when we too had the Law ' engrafted ^ ' in us,
and according to the unutterable sighings 3 of
the Spirit made our intercession, ' O Lord our
God, take possession of us *,' then, as 'He be-
came for a house of refuge ' and a 'God and
defence,' so also He became our Lord. Nor
did He then begin to be, but we began to have
Him for our Lord. For upon this, God being
good and Father of the Lord, in pity, and
desiring to be known by all, makes His own
Son put on Him a human body and become
man, and be called Jesus, that in this body
offering Himself for all. He might deliver all
from false worship and corruption, and might
Himself become of all Lord and King. His
becoming therefore in this way Lord and King,
this it is that Peter means by, ' He hath made
Him Lord,' and ' hath sent Christ ; ' as much
as to say, that the Father in making Him man
(for to be made belongs to man), did not
simply make Him man, but has made Him in .
order to His being Lord of all men, and to His
hallowing all through the Anointing. For
though the Word existing in the form of God
took a servant's form, yet the assumption of
the flesh did not make a servants of the Word,
who was by nature Lord ; but rather, not only
was it that emancipation of all humanity which
takes place by the Word, but that very Word
who was by nature Lord, and was then made
man, hath by means of a servant's form been
made Lord of all and Christ, that is, in order to
hallow all by the Spirit. And as God, when
' becoming a God and defence,' and saying, ' I
will be a God to them,' does not then become
God more than before, nor then begins to be-
come God, but, what He ever is, that He then
becomes to those who need Him, when it
12 Ps. Ixxi. 3. itony rock, E. V. Ps. ix. 9. dejence.
I Gal. iv. 8. == James i. 21.
3 Rom. viii. 26. 4 Is. xxvi. 13. LXX.
5 ovK cSouAoi/ Tov \6yov though, as he said su/j: . § 10, the
Word became a servant, as far as He was man. He says the
same thing £p. /^g 17. So say Naz. Orat. 32. 18. Nyssen. ad
Simpl. (t 2. p. 471.) Cyril. Alex. adv. Theodor. p. 223. Hilar.
de Trin. xi. Ambros. i. Epp. 46, 3.
A a 2
356
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
pleaseth Him, so Christ also being by nature
Lord and King everlasting, does not become
Lord more than He was at the time He is sent
forth, nor then begins to be Lord and King,
but what He is ever, that He then is made
according to the flesh ; and, having redeemed
all, He becomes thereby again Lord of quick
and dead. For Him henceforth do all things
serve, and this is David's meaning in the
Psalm, ' The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou
on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies
Thy footstool^.' For it was fitting that the
redemption should take place through none
other than Him who is the Lord by nature, lest,
though created by the Son, we should name
another Lord, and fall into the Arian and
Greek folly, serving the creature beyond the
all-creating God 7.
15. This, at least according to my nothing-
ness, is the meaning of this passage; more-
over, a true and a good meaning have these
words of Peter as regards the Jews. For
Jews, astray from the truth, expect indeed
the Christ as coming, but do not reckon
that He undergoes a passion, saying what
they understand not ; ' We know that, when
the Christ cometh, He abideth for ever,
and how sayest Thou, that He must be lifted
up^?' Next they suppose Him, not the Word
coming in flesh, but a mere man, as were all
the kings. The Lord then, admonishing Cle-
opas and the other, taught them that the
Christ must first suffer ; and the rest of the
Jews that God was come among them, saying,
' If He called them gods to whom the word of
God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken,
say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified
and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest,
because I said, I am the Son of God 9?'
16. Peter then, having learned this from the
Saviour, in both points set the Jews right,
saying, " O Jews, the divine Scriptures announce
that Christ cometh, and you consider Him a
mere man as one of David's descendants,
whereas what is written of Him shews Him
to be not such as you say, but rather an-
nounces Him as Lord and God, and immortal,
and dispenser of life. For Moses has said,
' Ye shall see your Life hanging before your
eyes -.' And David in the hundred and ninth
Psalm, ' The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit
Thou on My right hand, till I make .Thine
enemies Thy footstool^;' and in the fifteenth,
'Thou shalt not leave my soul in hades, neither
6 Ps. ex. I.
7 Vid. Rom. i. 25. and so both text and application very fre-
quently, e.g. Ep. y^g. 4. e. 13. c. Vid. supr. i. 8, note 8, infr. iii.
16. note 8 John xii. 34, not to the letter.
9 John X. 36.
' Deut. xxviii. 66. Vid. [de Incar. 35. The text is frequently
thus explained by the Fathers]. a Ps. ex. 1.
shalt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see cor-
ruption 3.' Now that these passages have not
David for their scope he himself witnesses,
avowing that He who was coming was His
own Lord. Nay you yourselves know that
He is dead, and His remains are with you.
That the Christ then must be such as the
Scriptures say, you will plainly confess your-
selves. For those announcements come from
God, and in them falsehood cannot be. If
then ye can state that such a one has come
before, and can prove him God from the signs
and wonders which he did, ye have reason for
maintaining the contest, but if ye are not able
to prove His coming, but are expecting such an
one still, recognise the true season from Daniel,
for his words relate to the present time. But if
this present season be that which was of old
afore-announced, and ye have seen what has
taken place among us, be sure that this Jesus,
whom ye crucified, this is the expected Christ.
For David and all the Prophets died, and
the sepulchres of all are with you, but that
Resurrection which has now taken place, has
shewn that the scope of these passages is
Jesus. For the crucifixion is denoted by ' Ye
shall see your Life hanging,' and the wound
in the side by the spear answers to ' He was
led as a sheep to the slaughter +,' and the
resurrection, nay more, the rising of the an-
cient dead from out their sepulchres (for these
most of you have seen), this is, 'Thou shalt
not leave My soul in hades,' and ' He swal-
lowed up death in strengths,' and again, 'God
will wipe away.' For the signs which actually
took place shew that He who was in a body
was God, and also the Life and Lord of death.
For it became the Christ, when giving life to
others. Himself not to be detained by death ;
but this could not have happened, had He, as
you suppose, been a mere man. But in truth
He is the Son of God, for men are all subject
to death. Let no one therefore doubt, but
the whole house of Israel know assuredly that
this Jesus, whom ye saw in shape a man, doing
signs and such works, as no one ever yet had
done, is Himself the Christ and Lord of all.
For though made man, and called Jesus, as
we said before. He received no loss by that hu-
man passion, but rather, in being made man. He
is manifested as Lord of quick and dead. For
since, as the Apostle said, ' in the wisdom of
God the world by wisdom knew not God, it
pleased God by the foolishness of preaching
to save them that believe^.' And so, since
we men would not acknowledge God through
His Word, nor serve the Word of God our
3 Ps. xvi. 19.
4 Is. liii. 7.
* I Cor. i. 21.
S Is. XXV. 8.
DISCOURSE II.
357
natural Master, it pleased God to shew in man
His own Lordship, and so to draw all men to
Himself. But to do this by a mere man be-
seemed not ^ ; lest, having man for our Lord,
we should become worshippers of man ^
Therefore the Word Himself became flesh,
and the Father called His Name Jesus, and
so 'made' Him Lord and Christ, as much as
to say, ' He made Him to rule and to reign ;'
that while in the Name of Jesus, whom ye
crucified, every knee bows, we may acknow-
ledge as Lord and King both the Son and
through Him the Father."
17. The Jews then, most of them*, hearing
this, came to themselves and forthwith ac-
knowledged the Christ, as it is written in the
Acts. But, the Ario-maniacs on the contrary
choose to remain Jews, and to contend with
Peter ; so let us proceed to place before them
some parallel phrases ; perhaps it may have
some effect upon them, to find what the usage
is of divine Scripture. Now that Christ is
everlasting Lord and King, has become plain
by what has gone before, nor is there a man
to doubt about it ; for being Son of God, He
must be like Him % and being like. He is
certainly both Lord and King, for He says
Himself, ' He that hath seen Me, hath seen
the Father.' On the other hand, that Peter's
mere words, ' He hath made Him both Lord
and Christ,' do not imply the Son to be a
creature, may be seen from Isaac's blessing,
though this illustration is but a faint one for
our subject. Now he said to Jacob, * Become
thou lord over thy brother;' and to Esau,
* Behold, I have made him thy lord 3.' Now
though the word 'made' had implied Jacob's
essence and the coming into being, even
then it would not be right in them as much as
to imagine the same of the Word of God, for
the Son of God is no creature as Jacob was \
besides, they might inquire and so rid them-
selves of that extravagance. But if they do
not understand it of his essence nor of his
coming into being, though Jacob was by nature
creature and work, is not their madness worse
than the Devil's *, if what they dare not ascribe
in consequence of a Hke phrase even to things
by nature originate, that they attach to the
Son of God, saying that He is a creature ?
For Isaac said 'Become' and 'I have made,'
signifying neither the coming into being nor
the essence of Jacob (for after thirty years and
7 In the text the Mediatorial Lordship is made an office of God
the Word ; still, not as God, but as man. Cf. Augustine, Trin. i.
27. 28. In like manner the Priesthood is the office ol God in the
form of man, supr. 8, note 4. And so again none but the Eternal
Son could be Tj-pioTOTOKOs, yet He is so called when sent as Creator
and as incarnate, infr. 64. ** Infr. iii. 32 fin.
1 oi 7rAei<7TOt. [An exaggeration, cf. Rom. xi. 7, &c.l
2 § 22, note. 3 Gen. xxvii. 29, 37. 4 Alluding to the
temptation.
more from his birth he said this) ; but his
authority over his brother, which came to pass
subsequently.
i8. Much more then did Peter say this
without meaning that the Essence of the
Word was a w^ork ; for he knew Him to be
God's Son, confessing, 'Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the Living God s ;' but he meant
His Kingdom and Lordship which was formed
and came to be according to grace, and was
relatively to us. For while saying this, he was
not silent about the Son of God's everlasting
Godhead which is. the Father's; but He had
said already, that He had poured the Spirit on
us ; now to give the Spirit with authority, is
not in the power of creature or work, but the
Spirit is God's Gift^. For the creatures are
hallowed by the Holy Spirit ; but the Son, in
that He is not hallowed by the Spirit, but on
the contrary Himself the Giver of it to all?, is
therefore no creature, but true Son of the
Father. And yet He who gives the Spirit, the
same is said also to be made; that is, to be
made among us Lord because of His man-
hood, while giving the Spirit because He is
God's Word. For He ever was and is, as Son,
so also Lord and Sovereign of all, being like
in all things ** to the Father, and having all
that is the Father's 9, as He Himself has
said '°.
CHAPTER XVI.
Introductory to Proverbs viii. 22, that
THE Son is not a Creature.
Arian formula, a creature but not as one of the creatures ;
but each creature is unlike all other creatures ; and
no creature can create. The Word then differs from
all creatures in that in which they, though otherwise
differing, all agree together, as creatures ; viz. in
being an efficient cause ; in being the one medium or
instrumental agent in creation ; moreover in being
the revealer of the Father; and in being the object
of worship.
18. {continued). Now in the next place let
us consider the passage in the Proverbs, ' The
Lord created me a beginning of His ways for
His works '^ ; ' although in shewing that the
Word is no work, it has been also shewn
that He is no creature. For it is the same
5 Matt. xvi. 16. .,_„.,.. . „ -
6 eeoO Scopoi'. And so more distinctly S. Basil, (napov tou Seov
TO irveiii.a. de Sp. S. 57, and more frequently the later Latins,
as in the Hymn, 'Altissimi Donum Dei;' and the earlier, e.g.
Hil. de Trin. ii. 29. and August. Trin. xv. 29. v. 15, Petav. Trin.
vii. 13, § 20. 7 Supr. ch. xii. * ofioios Kara ttolvto. vid. infr.
§ 22, note 4. 9 Vid. infr. note on Oras. iii. i. '" Vid.
John xvi. 15. ,.,,,, ■ .11
I Prov. viii. 22. [This text, which had been immemorially
applied to the A6yo^ ^sttpr. p. 168, note 7), and which 111 the false
rendering of the LXX. strongly favoured the Avian side], is pre-
sently explained at greater length than any other of the lexU-
he handles, forming the chief subject of the Oration henceforth,
after an introduction which extends down 10 44.
358
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
to say work or creature, so that the proof that
He is no work is a proof also that He is no crea-
ture. Whereas one may marvel at these men,
thus devising excuses to be irreligious, and
nothing daunted at the refutations which meet
them upon every point. For first they set
about deceiving the simple by their questions %
* Did He who is make from that which was
not one that was not or one that was 3 ? ' and,
' Had you a son before begetting him * ? ' And
when this had been proved worthless, next
they invented the question, 'Is the Unori-
ginate one or twos?' Then, when in this
they had been confuted, straightway they
formed another, ' Has He free-will and an
alterable nature^?' But being forced to give
up this, next they set about saying, ' Being
made so much better than the Angels ^ ; ' and
when the truth exposed this pretence, now
again, collecting them all together, they think
to recommend their heresy by ' work ' and
'creature^.' For they mean those very things
over again, and are true to their own perverse-
ness, putting into various shapes and turning
to and fro the same errors, if so be to deceive
some by that variousness. Although then
abundant proof has been given above of this
their reckless expedient, yet, since they make
all places sound with this passage from the
Proverbs, and to many who are ignorant of
the faith of Christians, seem to say somewhat,
it is necessary to examine separately, ' He
created ' as well as ' Who was faithful to Him
that made Him 9 ; ' that, as in all others, so in
this text also, they may be proved to have got
no further than a fantasy.
19. And first let us see the answers, which
they returned to Alexander of blessed memory,
in the outset, while their heresy was in course
of formation. They wrote thus : ' He is a
creature, but not as one of the creatures ;
a work, but not as one of the works ; an
offspring, but not as one of the offsprings *.'
Let every one consider the profligacy and craft
of this heresy ; for knowing the bitterness of
its own malignity, it makes an effort to trick
itself out with fair words, and says, what indeed
it means, that He is a creature, yet thinks to
be able to screen itself by adding, 'but not
as one of the creatures.' However, in thus
writing, they rather convict themselves of
irreligion ; for if, in your opinion. He is simply
"_ From the methodical manner in which the successive portions
of his foregoing Oration are here referred to, it would almost seem
as if he were answering in course some Arian work. vid. also S7</r.
Oral. i. 37, 53. in/r. Orat. jii. 26. He does not seem to be tracing
the controversy historically. 3 Supr. ch. vii. 4 Ch. viii.
S Ch. ix. 6 Ch. X. 7 Ch. xiii. 8 Ch. xiv. and xv.
9 Ch. xiv. Heb. iii. 2.
I Vid. Arius's letter, de Syn. 16. This was the sophism by
ineans of which Valens succeeded with the Fathers of Arminium.
*id. S. Jeiome in Lucijerian. 18. vid. also in Eusebius, st</>r.
EJ>. Eiis. t.
a creature, why add the pretence', 'but not
as one of the creatures?' And if He is simply
a work, how ' not as one of the works ? ' In
which we may see the poison of the heresy.
For by saying, 'offspring, but not as one of
the offsprings,' they reckon many sons, and
one of these they pronounce to be the Lord ;
so that according to them He is no more
Only-begotten, but one out of many brethren,
and is called 3 offspring and son. What use
then is this pretence of saying that He is
a creature and not a creature ? for though
ye shall say, Not as 'one of the creatures,'
I will prove this sophism of yours to be
foolish. For still ye pronounce Him to be
one of the creatures ; and whatever a man
might say of the other creatures, such ye
hold concerning the Son, ye truly 'fools and
blind 4.' For is any one of the creatures just
what another is 5, that ye should predicate this
of the Son as some prerogative ^ ? And all the
visible creation was made in six days : — in the
first, the light which He called day; in the
second the firmament ; in the third, gathering
together the waters. He bared the dry land,
and brought out the various fruits that are
in it ; and in the fourth, He made the sun and
the moon and all the host of the stars ; and
on the fifth. He created the race of living
things in the sea, and of birds in the air ; and
on the sixth, He made the quadrupeds on the
earth, and at length man. And ' the invisible
things of Him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made 7 ; and neither the light
is as the night, nor the sun as the moon ; nor
the irrational as rational man ; nor the Angels
as the Thrones, nor the Thrones as the Au-
thorities, yet they are all creatures, but each
of the things made according to its kind
* £>e Syn. 32.
3 v'iov xpijMaTt'feti/. The question between Catholics and Arians
was whether our Lord was a true Son, or only called Son. ' Since
they whisper something about Word and Wisdom as only names
of the Son, &c." ovoixa-TO. (noi/ov, stipr. i. 26, note i, and de Deer.
16, note 10. And so ' the title of Image is not a token of a similar
substance, but His name only," sitpr. i. 21, and so infr. 38. where
Tois ovoixam is synonymous with /car' ewivoLav, as Sent, D. 22. f. a.
Vid. also 39. Orat. iii. 11. 18. 'not named Son, but ever Son,' iv.
24. fin. Ep. ^g. 16. 'We call Him so, and mean truly what we
say ; they say it, but do not confess it.' Chrysost. in Act. Horn.
33. 4. vid. also voflots ixrirep bvoixacn, Cyril, de Trin. ii. p. 418.
Non haec nuda nomina, Ambros. de Fid. i. 17. Yet, since the
Sabellians equally failed here, also considering the Sonship as
only a notion or title, vid. Orat. iv. 2. (where in contrast,
' The Father is Father, and the Son Son,' vid. supr. p. 319, note i.)
12. 23. 25. the word 'real' was used as against them, and
in opposition to ai/vTrooToTos Aoyoc, by the Arians, and in con-
sequence failed as a test of orthodox teaching ; e.g. by Arius,
supr. p. 97. by Euseb. i?i Marc. pp. 19, d. 35, b. i6i, c. by Aste-
rius, in/r. 37. by Palladlus and Secundiis in the Council of Aqui-
leia ap. Ambros. Opp. t. 2. p. 791. (ed. BeneH.)by Maximinus ap.
August, contr. Max. i. 6. 4 Watt, xxiii. 19.
5 And so S. Ambrose, Quae enim creatura non sicut alia crea-
tura non est? Homo non ut Angehis, terra non ut coelum. de Fid.
i. n. 130. and a similar passage in Nyss. contr. Eun. iii. p. 132, 3.
(• efoi'peTOi'. vid. in/r. Orat. iii. 3. init. iv. 28. init. Eiiseb.
Eccl- Tlieol. pp. 47. b. 73. b. 89. b. 124. a. 129. c. Theodor. H. E.
Pi 732. Nyss. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 133. a. Epiph. Har. 76. p. 970^
Cyril. Thes. p. i6o- 7 Rom. i. 20.
DISCOURSE II.
359
exists and remains in its own essence, as it
was made.
20. Let the Word then be excepted from
the works, and as Creator be restored to the
Father, and be confessed to be Son by nature ;
or if simply He be a creature, then let Him
be assigned the same condition as the rest
* one with another, and let them as well as He
be said every one of them to be 'a creature,
but not as one of the creatures, offspring or
work, but not as one of the works or offsprings.'
For ye say that an offspring is the same as
a work, writing * generated or made \' For
though the Son excel the rest on a com-
parison, still a creature He is nevertheless,
as they are ; since in those which are by
nature creatures one may find some excelling
others. Star, for instance, differs from star in
glory, and the rest have all of them their
mutual differences when compared together ;
yet it follows not for all this that some are
lords, and others servants to the superior, nor
that some are efficient causes ^, others by them
come into being, but all have a nature which
comes to be and is created, confessing in
their own selves their Framer : as David says
in the Psalms, ' The heavens declare the glory
of God, and the firmament sheweth His handy
work3;' and as Zorobabel the wise says, 'All
the earth calleth upon the Truth, and the heaven
blesseth it : all works shake and tremble at
itl' But if the whole earth hymns the Framer
and the Truth, and blesses, and fears it, and
its Framer is the Word, and He Himself says,
' I am the Truths,' it follows that the Word is
not a creature, but alone proper to the Father,
in whom all things are disposed, and He is
celebrated by all, as Framer ; for ' I was
by Him disposing^;' and ' My Father worketh
hitherto, and I work?.' And the word ' hither-
to' shews His eternal existence in the Father
as the Word ; for it is proper to the Word to
work the Father's works and not to be external
to Him.
21. But if what the Father worketh, that
the Son worketh also% and what the Son
createth, that is the creation of the Father,
and yet the Son be the Father's work or
creature, then either He will work His own
self, and will be His own creator (since what
I yevvyiSdvTa fi iToa]64vTa; as if they were synonymous; in
opposition to which the Nicene Creed says, yevvT\QiUTa ov jtoitj-
eivra.. In like manner Arius in his letter to Eusebius uses the
words, TTplv yevvr)e-() tjtoi ktiktStj, 7; opt-aSfi, r) OeixeKiuiefj, Theodor.
ff. E. p. 750. And to Alexander, axpoi'ws -jivvy\9e\% kcCk. rrpo aliaviov
KTio-eels xal ecjieAiwSei's- tie Syn. 16. And Eusebius to Paulinus,
KTia-Tou Kal deixe\i(0T0v Koi yei/vriTov Theod. p. 752. The different
words profess to be Scriptural, and to explain each other ; ' created '
being in Prov. viii. 22. ' made ' in the passages considered in the
last two chapters, ' appointed ' or ' declared ' in Rom. i. 4. and
'founded' or 'established' in Prov. viii. 23. which is discussed
in/r. 22, &c. vid. also 52. ^ 21, note 2.
3 Ps. xtx. 1. 4 I Esdr. iv. 36. 5 John xiv. 6.
* Prov. viii. 30, LXX. 7 John v. 17. ' Orat. iii. 11. note.
the Father worketh is the Son's work also),
which is absurd and impossible ; or, in that
He creates and worketh the things of the
Father, He Himself is not a work nor a
creature ; for else being Himself an efficient
caused He may cause that to be in the case
of things caused, which He Himself has be-
come, or ratlier He may have no power to
cause at all.
For how, if, as you hold, He is come of
nothing, is He able to frame things that
are nothing into being ? or if He, a creature,
withal frames a creature, the same will be con-
ceivable in the case of every creature, viz.
the power to frame others. And if this pleases
you, what is the need of the Word, seeing
that things inferior can be brought to be
by things superior ? or at all events, every
thing that is brought to be could have heard
in the beginning God's words, ' Become ' and
'be made,' and so would have been framed.
But this is not so written, nor could it be.
For none of things which are brought to be
is an efficient cause, but all things were made
through the Word : who would not have
wrought all things, were He Himself in the
number of the creatures. For neither would
the Angels be able to frame, since they too
are creatures, though Valentinus, and Marcion,
and Basilides think so, and you are their
copyists; nor will the sun, as being a creature,
ever make what is not into what is ; nor
will man fashion man, nor stone devise stone,
nor wood give growth. to wood. But God is
He who fashions man in the womb, and fixes
the mountains, and makes wood grow; whereas
man, as being capable of science, puts together
and arranges that material, and works things
that are, as he has learned ; and is satisfied
if they are but brought to be, and being con-
scious of what his nature is, if he needs aught,
knows to ask 3 it of God.
2 2. If then God also wrought and com-
pounded out of materials, this indeed is a
gentile thought, according to which God is an
artificer and not a Maker, but yet even in that
case let the Word work the materials, at the
bidding and in the service of God '. But if He
a noirtTLKou atrtov, also, znfr. 27. and Orat. iii. 14. and contr.
Gent. 9 init. No creature can create, vid. e.g. about Angels,
August, de Civ. Dei xii. 24. de Trin. iii. 13 — 18. Damasc. F. O. ii.
3. Cyril injtilian, ii. p. 62. 'Our reason rejects the idea that the
Creator should be a creature, for creation is by the Creator.' Hil.
Trin. xii. 5. irws h\>va.ro.i. to KriC,d\).ivov KTi^eiv ; 17 uws 6 kti'^mv
KTt'feTai; Athan. aJ Afros. 4 fin. Vid. also Serap. i. 24, 6. iii.
4, e. The Gnostics who attributed creation to Angels are alluded
to infr. Orat. iii. 12. Epiph. Hcer. 52. 53, 163, &c. Theodor. Hcer.
i. I and 3. 3 De Deer. ij.
' Trpoo-TaTTO/oiei'OS Ka'i vnovpywv. It is not quite clear that .
Athan. accepts these words in his own person, as has been assumed
de Deer. g. note 2, de Syn. 27 (3). Vid. de Deer. 7. and ijifr. 24.
and 31, which, as far as they go, are against the use of the word.
Also S. Basil objects to vnovpyo% contr. Eunom. ii. 21. and S. Cyril
in Joan. p. 48. though S. Basil speaks of toi' TrpocrTaTTOvTo. Kvpiov.
i. 46, note 3. and S. Cyril of the Son's vnoTayri, TAesaur. p. 255.
36o
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
calls into existence things which existed not
by His proper Word, then the Word is not in
the number of things non-existing and called ;
or we have to seek another Word 2, through
whom He too was called ; for by the Word
the things which were not have come to be.
And if through Him He creates and makes,
He is not Himself of things created and made ;
but rather He is the Word of the Creator God,
and is known from the Father's works which
He Himself worketh, to be ' in the Father and
the Father in Him,' and ' He that hath seen
Him hath seen the Fathers,' because the Son's
Essence is proper to the Father, and He in
all points like Him +. How then does He
create through Him, unless it be His Word anti
His Wisdom ? and how can He be Word and
Wisdom, unless He be the proper offspring of
His Essences, and did not come to be, as
others, out of nothing? And whereas all things
are from nothing, and are creatures, and the
Son, as they say, is one of the creatures too,
and of things which once were not, how does
He alone reveal the Father, and none else but
He know the Father? For could He, a work,
possibly know the Father, then must the Father
be also known by all according to the propor-
tion of the measures of each : for all of them
are works as He is. But if it be impossible for
things originate either to see or to know, for
the sight and the knowledge of Him surpasses all
{since God Himself says, ' No one shall see My
face and live^'), yet the Son has declared, 'No
one knoweth the Father, save the Son 7,' there-
fore the Word is different from all things origin-
ate, in that He alone knows and alone sees
the Father, as He says, ' Not that any one hath
seen the Father, save He that is from the
Father,' and ' no one knoweth the Father save
Vid. ' ministering, vTnjpcToui'Ta, to the Father of all.' Just. Trypk.
p. 72.' 'The Word become minister, virqpdrr)^, of the Creator,"
Ongen If am. in Joan. p. 6i. also Constit. Ap. viii. 12. but Pseudo-
Athan. objects to vinipeTCiv, de Conim. Essent. 30. and Athan.
apparently, infr. 28. Again, 'Whom did He order, praecepit?'
Iren. Hcer. iii. 8. n. 3. ' The Father bids, ci/TcAAerat (allusion to
Ps. xxxiii. 9. vid. itifr. 31), the Word accomplishes. . . . He who
commands, iceAewcoi', is the Father, He who obeys, vrraKOiiwi', the
Son. . . . The Father willed, -q6e\ria-ev, the Son did it.' Hippol.
contr. Koet. 14. on which Fabricius's note. S. Hilary speaks
of the Son as ' subditus per ubedientia; obsequelam.' de Sy?i. 51.
Vid. below, on § 31. In note 8 there the principle is laid down
for the use of these expressions. [Supr. p. 87, note 2.]
2 Cf. Ep. Mg. 14. vid. also s7tpT. p. 155. and Orat. iii. 2.
64. Aug. in Joan. Tract, i. 11. Vid. a parallel argument with
reference to the Holy Spirit. Serap. i. 25. b.
3 Vid. John xiv. 9, 10.
4 TTji/ Kara tto-vto. 6/u,otor>)Ta : vid. parallel instances, de Syn.
26 (5) note I, which add, o/ioios Kara, ira-vra, Orat. i. 40. Ka,Ta.
TTa.vTa.Kai iv 7ra<ri, Ep. jEg, 17, c. tou Trarpbs 0^01.05, Orat, ii. 17.
Orat. iii. 20, a. 'not o/j.oios, as the Church preaches, but (is avxol
ye'A.ou(ri' (vid. p. 289, note 4), also de Syn. 53, note 9.
5 As Sunship is implied in ' Image ' {supr. § 2, note 2), so it is
implied in ' Word ' and ' Wisdom.' Orat. iv. 15. Orat. iii. 29 init.
de Deer. 17. And still more pointedly, Orat. iv. 24 fin. vid. albo
supr. i. 28, note 5. And so ' Image' is implied in Sonship : ' being
Son of God He must be like Him,' supr. 17. And so ' Image'
is implied in Word ,' iv -ry Ihia. ec/cdfi, rjrts i.(jr\v 6 Aoyos avroO,
z'njr. 82, d. also 34, c. On the contrary, the very root of heretical
error was the denial that these titles implied each other, vid. supr.
27, de Deer. 17, 24, notes. 6 Vid. Ex. xxxiii. 20.
7 Matt. xi. 27.
the Son 8,' though Arius think otherwise. How
then did He alone know, except that He alone
was proper to Him ? and how proper, if He
were a creature, and not a true Son from Him ?
(For one must not mind saying often the same
thing for religion's sake.) Therefore it is irreli-
gious to think that the Son is one of all things ;
and blasphemous and unmeaning to call Him
' a creature, but not as one of the creatures,
and a work, but not as one of the works, an
offspring, but not as one of the offsprings ;' for
how not as one of these, if, as they say. He was
not before His generation 9 ? for it is proper to
the creatures and works not to be before their
origination, and to subsist out of nothing, even
though they excel other creatures in glory; for
this difference of one with another will be found
in all creatures, which appears in those which
are visible ^°.
23. Moreover if, as the heretics hold, the
Son were creature or work, but not as one of
the creatures, because of His excelling them in
glory, it were natural that Scripture should
describe and display Him by a comparison in
His favour with the other works ; for instance,
that it should say that He is greater than Arch-
angels, and more honourable than the Thrones,
and both brighter than sun and moon, and
greater than the heavens. But he is not in
fact thus referred to ; but the Father shews
Him to be His own proper and only Son, say-
ing, ' Thou art My Son,' and ' This is My
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased ' '
Accordingly the Angels ministered unto Him,
as being one beyond themselves ; and they
worship Him, not as being greater in glory, but
as being some one beyond all the creatures, and
beyond themselves, and alone the Father's
proper Son according to essence ^ For if He
was worshipped as excelling them in glory,
each of things subservient ought to worship
what excels itself. But this is not the case 3 ;
for creature does not worship creature, but
servant Lord, and creature God. Thus Peter
the Apostle hinders Cornelius who would
worship him, saying, ' I myself also am a man*.'
And an Angel, when John would worship him
in the Apocalypse, hinders him, saying, ' See
thou do it not ; for I am thy fellow-servant, and
of thy brethren the Prophets, and of them that
keep the sayings of this book : worship Gods.'
Therefore to God alone appertains worship, and
this the very Angels know, that though they
excel other beings in glory, yet they are all
creatures and not to be worshipped ^, but
worship the Lord. Thus Manoah, the father of
8 John vi. 46, not to the letter. 9 Vid. supr. i. and Exc. B.
1° Greek text dislocated. ' Ps. ii. 7 ; Matt. iii. 17.
2 De Deer. 10. 3 Vid. Orat. iii. 12. 4 Acts x. 26
5 Rev. xxii. 9. ^ [A note, to the effect that ' worship' i
an ambiguous term, is omitted here.
DISCOURSE II.
361
Samson, wishing to offer sacrifice to the
Angel, was thereupon hindered by him, say-
ing, 'Offer not to me, but to God?.' On
the other hand, the Lord is worshipped even
by the Angels ; for it is written, ' Let all the
Angels of God worship Him ^ ;' and by all
the Gentiles, as Isaiah says, ' The labour of
Egypt and merchandize of Ethiopia and of the
Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto
thee, and they shall be thy servants;' and
then, 'they shall fall down unto thee, and shall
make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely
God is in thee, and there is none else, there is
no God 9.' And He accepts His disciples'
worship, and certifies them who He is, saying,
' Call ye Me not Lord and Master ? and ye say
well, for so I am.' And when Thomas said to
Him, ' My Lord and my God ^°,' He allows
his words, or rather accepts him instead of
hindering him. For He is, as the other Pro-
phets declare, and David says in the Psalm,
* the Lord of hosts, the Lord of Sabaoth,'
which is interpreted, 'the Lord of Armies,' and
God True and Almighty, though the Arians
burst" at the tidings,
24. But He had not been thus worshipped,
nor been thus spoken of, were He a creature
merely. But now since He is not a creature,
but the proper offspring of the Essence of
that God who is worshipped, and His Son by
nature, therefore He is worshipped and is
believed to be God, and is Lord of armies, and
in authority, and Almighty, as the Father is ;
for He has said Himself, ' All things that the
Father hath, are Mine'.' For it is proper to
the Son, to have the things of the Father, and
to be such that the Father is seen in Him, and
that through Him all things were made, and
that the salvation of all comes to pass and
consists in Him.
CHAPTER XVH.
Introduction to Proverbs viii. 22
CONTINUED.
Absurdity of supposing a Son or Word created in order
to the creation of other creatures; as to the creation
being unable to bear God's immediate hand, God
condescends to the lowest. Moreover, if the Son
a creature, He too could not bear God's hand, and
an infinite series of media will be necessary. Ob-
jected, that, as Moses who led out the Israelites was
a man, so our Lord ; but Moses was not the Agent in
creation : — again, that unity is found in created minis-
trations, but all such ministrations are defective and
dependent : — again, that He learned to create, yet
8 Heb. i. 6.
9 Is. xlv. 14.
7 Vid. Judg. xiii. i6.
»o John xiii. 13 ; xx. 28.
" diappriyvvixiaiv eavTovs' also ad Adelph. 8. and vid. supr,
note on de Deer. 17. vid, also Siapprj-yi'uaji'Tat, de Syn. 54, xal
ittvpayoiej/, Marcell. ap. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 116. also p. 40
Tpt^Mtrt Toiis oSovTws, de Fug. 26. init. Tpi^iTii^aav, ad Adel^h. 8.
Hist. A 7: 68. fin. and literally 72. a. kotttovitiv eaurovs. Inillud
Omnia 5. ' John xvi. 15.
could God's Wisdom need teaching? and why should
He leam, if the Father worketh hitherto? If the
Son was created to create us, He is for our sake, not
we for His.
24 {coj2timted). And here it were well to
ask them also this question ^ for a still
clearer refutation of their heresy ;— Where-
fore, when all things are creatures, and all
are brought into consistence from nothing,
and the Son Himself, according to you, is
creature and work, and once was not, where-
fore has He made 'all things through Him'
alone, ' and without Him was made not
one thing ^ ?' or why is it, when ' all things '
are spoken of, that no one thinks the Son is
signified in the number, but only things origin-
ate ; whereas when Scripture speaks of the
Word, it does not understand Him as being in
the number of ' all,' but places Him with the
Father, as Him in whom Providence and sal-
vation for ' all ' are wrought and effected by
the Father, though all things surely might at
the same command have come to be, at which
He was brought into being by God alone ?
For God is not wearied by commanding 3, nor
is His strength unequal to the making of all
things, that He should alone create the only
Son 4, and need His ministry and aid for the
framing of the rest. For He lets nothing stand
over, which He wills to be done ; but He
willed only s, and all things subsisted, and no
one ' hath resisted His will ^.' Why then were
not all things brought into being by God
alone at that same command, at which the
Son came into being ? Or let them tell
us, why did all things through Him come
to be, who was Himself but originate ? How
void of reason ! however, they say con-
cerning Him, that ' God willing to create
originate nature, when He saw that it could
not endure the untempered hand of the Father,
and to be created by Him, makes and creates
first and alone one only, and calls Him Son
and Word, that, through Him as a medium, all
things might thereupon be brought to be°^"
This they not only have said, but they have
dared to put it into writing, namely, Eusebius,
Arius, and Asterius who sacrificed 7.
25. Is not this a full proof of that irreligion,
1 These sections 24 — 26 are very similar to de Deer. 7, 8, yet
not in- wording or order, as is the case with other passages.
2 John i. 3. 3 De Deer. 7. _
4 fioi/os ii.6vov, also infr. 30. this phrase is synonymous with
' not as one of the creatures,' vid. /xd^os «irb /xoi/ov, supr, p. 12.
also p. 75. note 6. vid. /iaoVus, de Syn. 26, fin. note 2, though that
term is somewhat otherwise explained by S. Greg. Naz. ^toVws ovx
MS rd criifiaTa, Orat. 25, 16. Eunomius understood by laoi/oyei/^s,
not /awos yei'f7)Sei.s but Trapo. ix.6vov. It should be observed, how-
ever, that this is a sense in which some of the Greek Fathers under-
stand the term, thus contrasting generation with procession, vid.
Petav. Trin. vii. ii. § 3. 5 §§ 29, 31. ^ Rom. ix. .19.
6" Vid. de Deer. § 8. supr. p. 2. also Cyril. Thesaicr. pp. 150,
241. de Trin. p. 523. Basil contr. Ezmoin. ii. 21. vid. also infr. 29.
Orat. iv. 11, 12. 7 De Deer. 8.
362
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
with which they have drugged themselves with
much madness, till they blush not to be in-
toxicate against the truth ? For if they shall
assign the toil of making all things as the
reason why God made the Son only, the whole
creation will cry out against them as saying
unworthy things of God ; and Isaiah too who
has said in Scripture, ' The Everlasting God,
the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth,
fainteth not, neither is weary : there is no
searching of His understanding '.' And if God
made the Son alone, as not deigning to make
the rest, but committed them to the Son as an
assistant, this on the other hand is unworthy
of God, for in Him there is no pride. Nay
the Lord reproves the thought, when He says,
'Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?'
and ' one of them shall not fall on the ground
without your Father which is in heaven.' And
again, ' Take no thought for your life, what ye
shall eat, nor yet for your body, what ye shall
put on. Is not the life more than meat, and
the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of
the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap,
nor gather into barns ; yet your heavenly
Father feedeth them ; are ye not much better
than they ? Which of you by taking thought,
can add one cubit unto his stature ? And why
take ye thought for raiment? Consider the
lilies of the field, how 'they grow ; they toil
not, neither do they spin : and yet I say unto
you, that even Solomon in all his glory was
not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore if
God so clothe the grass of the field which
to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven,
shall He not much more clothe you, O ye of
little faith ^?' If then it be not unworthy of
God to exercise His Providence, even down to
things so small, a hair of the head, and a
sparrow, and the grass of the field, also it was
not unworthy of Him to make them. For
what things are the subjects of His Providence,
of those He is Maker through His proper
Word. Nay a worse absurdity lies before the
men who thus speak ; for they distinguish 3
between the creatures and the framing; and
consider the latter the work of the Father, the
creatures the work of the Son ; whereas either
all things must be brought to be by the Father
with the Son, or if all that is originate comes
to be through the Son, we must not call Him
one of the originated things.
26. Next, their folly may be exposed thus: —
if even the Word be of originated nature, how,
whereas this nature is too feeble to be God's
own handywork, could He alone of all endure
to be made by the unoriginate and unmitigated
I Is. xl. 28. 2 Matt. X. 29 ; vi. 25—30.
3 Siaipov(Tiv, as supr. de Deer. 7,
t
Essence of God, as ye say ? for it follows
either that, if He could endure it, all could
endure it, or, it being endurable by none,
it was not endurable by the Word, for you
say that He is one of originate things. And
again, if because originate nature could not
endure to be God's own handywork, there
arose need of a mediator *, it must follow,
that, the Word being originate and a creature,
there is need of medium in His framing also,
since He too is of that originate nature which
endures not to be made of God, but needs
a medium. But if some being as a medium
be found for Him, then again a fresh mediator
is needed for that second, and thus tracing
back and following out, we shall invent a vast
crowd of accumulating mediators ; and thus
it will be impossible that the creation should
subsist, as ever wanting a mediator, and that
medium not coming into being without an-
other mediator; for all of them will be of that
originate nature which endures not to be made
of God alone, as ye say. How abundant is
that folly, which obliges them to hold that
what has already come into being, admits
not of coming I Or perhaps they opine that
they have not even come to be, as still
seeking their mediator; for, on the ground
of their so irreligious and futile notions, what
is would not have subsistence, for want of the
medium,
27. But again they allege this: — 'Behold,
through Moses too did He lead the people
from Egypt, and through him He gave the
Law, yet he was a man ; so that it is possible
for like to be brought into being by like.'
They should veil their face when they say
this, to save their much shame. For Moses
was not sent to frame the world, nor to call
into being things which were not, or to fashion
men like himself, but only to be the minister
of words to the people, and to King Pharaoh.
And this is a very different thing, for to minister
is of things originate as of servants, but to
frame and to create is of God alone, and of
His proper Word and His Wisdom. Where-
fore, in the matter of framing, we shall find
none but God's Word ; for ' all things are
made in Wisdom,' and ' without the Word
was made not one thing.' But as regards
ministrations there are, not one only, but
many out of their whole number, whomever
the Lord will send. For there are many Arch-
angels, many Thrones, and Authorities, and
Dominions, thousands of thousands, and my-
riads of myriads, standing before Him\ minis-
4 Vid. ib. 8. vid. also a similar argument in Epiphanius Har.
76. p. 951. but the arguments of Ath. in these Orations are so
generally adopted by the succeeding Fathers, that it is impossible
and needless to enumerate the instances of agreement.
5 And so de Deer. 8. ' i. 62. and Ambros. de Fid. iii. 106.
(I
DISCOURSE II.
363
tering and ready to be sent. And many
Prophets, and twelve Apostles, and Paul, And
Moses himself was not alone, but Aaron with
him, and next other seventy were filled with
the Holy Ghost. And Moses was succeeded
^by Joshua the son of Nun, and he by the
Judges, and they not by one, but by a number
of Kings. If then the Son were a creature
and one of things originate, there must have
been many such sons, that God might have
many such ministers, just as there is a multi-
tude of those others. But if this is not to be
seen, but while the creatures are many, the
Word is one, any one will collect from this, that
the Son differs from all, and is not on a level
with the creatures, but proper to the Father.
Hence there are not many Words, but one
only Word of the one Father, and one Image
of the one God^ 'But behold,' they say,
'there is one sun only 3, and one earth.' Let
them maintain, senseless as they are, that
there is one water and one fire, and then they
may be told that everything that is brought
to be, is one in its own essence ; but for the
ministry and service committed to it, by itself
it is not adequate nor sufficient alone. For
God said, ' Let there be lights in the firma-
ment of heaven, to give light upon the earth,
and to divide the day from the night ; and let
them be for signs and for seasons and for days
and years.' And then he says, 'And God
made two great lights, the greater light to rule
the day, and the lesser light to rule the night :
He made the stars also. And God set them
in the firmament of the heaven, to give light
upon the earth, and to rule over the day and
over the night 4.'
28. Behold there are many lights, and not
the sun only, nor the moon only, but each
is one in essence, and yet the service of
all is one and common ; and what each lacks,
is supplied by the other, and the ofiice of
lighting is performed by alls. Thus the sun
has authority to shine throughout the day
and no more ; and the moon through the
night ; and the stars together with them ac-
complish the seasons and years, and become
for signs, each according to the need that
calls for it. Thus too the earth is not for
all things, but for the fruits only, and to be
a ground to tread on for the living things
that inhabit it. And the firmament is to di-
vide between waters and waters, and to be
a place to set the stars in. So also fire and
water, with other things, have been brought
into being to be the constituent parts of
bodies ; and in short no one thing is alone,
but all things that are made, as if members
■ S 36, note 4. _
4 Gen. i. 14—18.
3 Vid. Euseb. Demon, iv. 5 fin.
5 §48.
of each other, make up as it were one body,
namely, the world. If then they thus con-
ceive of the Son, let all men throw stones^
at them, considering the Word to be a part
of this universe, and a part insufficient without
the rest for the service committed to Him.
But if this be manifestly irreligious, let them
acknowledge that the Word is not in the
number of things originate, but the sole and
proper Word of the Father, and their Framer.
' But,' say they, ' though He is a creature and
of things originate ; yet as from a master
and artificer has He 7 learned to frame, and
thus ministered^ to God who taught Him.'
For thus the Sophist Asterius, on the strength
of having learned to deny the Lord, has
dared to write, not observing the absurdity
which follows. For if framing be a thing
to be taught, let them beware lest they
say that God Himself be a Framer not
by nature but by science, so as to admit
of His losing the power. Besides, if the
Wisdom of God attained to frame by teach-
ing, how is He still Wisdom, when He needs
to learn ? and what was He before He
learned ? For it was not Wisdom, if it needed
teaching \ it was surely but some empty thing,
and not essential Wisdom 9, but from ad-
vancement it had the name of Wisdom, and
will be only so long Wisdom as it can keep
what it has learned. For what has accrued
not by any nature, but from learning, admits
of being one time unlearned. But to speak
thus of the Word of God, is not the part of
Christians but of Greeks.
29. For if the power of framing accrues to
any one from teaching, these insensate men are
ascribing jealousy and weakness ^ to God ; —
jealousy, in that He has not taught many how
to frame, so that there may be around Him,
as Archangels and Angels many, so framers
many ; and weakness, in that He could not
make by Himself, but needed a fellow-worker,
or under-worker ; and that, though it has been
already shewn that created nature admits of
being made by God alone, since they consider
the Son to be of such a nature and so made.
But God is deficient in nothing : perish the
thought ! for He has said Himself, ' I am
full ^' Nor did the Word become Framer of
all from teaching; but being the Image and
Wisdom of the Father, He does the things
of the Father. Nor hath He made the Son
for the making of things created ; for behold,
though the Son exists, still 3 the Father is seen
to work, as the Lord Himself says, ' My
Father worketh hitherto and I work*.' If
* § 4, note 2.
8 § 22, note I.
I i. 27. * Is. i. ti.
4 John V. 17.
7 Cyril, in /nan. p. 47, c.
9 oucrtwSrjs ao(j>i.a. vid. Orat. iv. i.
3 vid. p. 315, note 6. Strap, ii. 2. fin.
3^4
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
however, as you say, the Son came into being
for the purpose of making the things after
Him, and yet the Father is seen to work even
after the Son, you must hold even in this
light the making of such a Son to be super-
iluous. Besides, why, when He would create
us, does He seek for a mediator at all, as if
His will did not sufifice to constitute whatever
seemed good to Him? Yet the Scriptures
say, 'He hath done whatsoever pleased Hims,'
and 'Who hath resisted His will^?' And if His
mere will ^ is sufficient for the framing of
all things, you make the office of a mediator
superfluous ; for your instance of Moses, and
the sun and the moon has been shewn not to
hold. And here again is an argument to
silence you. You say that God, willing the
ci-eation of originated nature, and deliberating
concerning it, designs and creates the Son,
that through Him He may frame us ; now,
if so, consider how great an irreligion^ you
have dared to utter.
30. First, the Son appears rather to have
been for us brought to be, than we for Him ;
for we were not created for Him, but He is made
for us9 ; so that He owes thanks to us, not we
to Him, as the woman to the man. ' For the
man,' says Scripture, 'was not created for the
woman, but the woman for the man.' There-
fore, as ' the man is the image and glory of
God, and the woman the glory of the man^°,' so
we are made God's image and to His glory ;
but the Son is our image, and exists for our
glory. And we were brought into being that
we might be ; but God's Word was made, as you
must hold, not that He might be ^ ; but as an
instrument ^ for our need, so that not we from
Him, but He is constituted from our need.
Are not men who even conceive such thoughts,
more than insensate ? For if for us the Word
was made. He has not precedence 3 of us with
God ; for He did not take counsel about us
having Him within Him, but having us in Him-
self, counselled, as they say, concerning His
own Word. But if so, perchance the Father
had not even a will for the Son at all ; for not
as having a will for Him, did He create Him,
but with a will for us. He formed Him for our
sake ; for He designed Him after designing us ;
so that, according to these irreligious men,
henceforth the Son, who was made as an instru-
ment, is superfluous, now that they are made
for whom He was created. But if the Son
alone was made by God alone, because He
could endure it, but we, because we could not,
5 Ps. cxv. 3. 6 Rom. ix. 19.
7 § 24, note 5. 8 Notes on § 58, and de Deer. i.
9 Vid. Orat. iv. 11. 'o 1 Cor. xi. 7, 9.
' Cf. in/r. ch. 20. * opyavov, supr, i, 26, n. 5.
3 TrpwTOS ^f*<«>i', § 63, note
were made by the Word, why does He not
first take counsel about the Word, who could
endure His making, instead of taking counsel
about us ? or why does He not make more of
Him who was strong, than of us who were
weak? or why making Him first, does He not,
counsel about Him first? or why counseUing
about us first, does He not make us first. His
will being sufficient for the constitution of all
things ? But He creates Him first, yet counsels
first about us ; and He wills us before the
Mediator ; and when He wills to create us, and
counsels about us. He calls us creatures ; but
Him, whom He frames for us. He calls Son and
proper Heir. But we, for whose sake He
made Him, ought rather to be called sons ; or
certainly He, who is His Son, is rather the
object of His previous thoughts and of His
will, for whom He makes all us. Such the
sickness, such the vomit ^ of the heretics.
CHAPTER XVni.
Introduction to Proverbs viii.
CONTINUED.
22
Contrast between the Father's operations immediately
and naturally in the Son, instrumentally by the crea-
tures ; Scripture terms illustrative of this. Explana-
tion of these illustrations ; which should be interpreted
by the doctrine of the Church ; perverse sense put on
them by the Arians, refuted. Mystery of Divine
Generation. Contrast between God's Word and
man's word drawn out at length. Asterius betrayed
into holding two Unoriginates ; his inconsistency.
Baptism how by the Son as well a-^ by the Father.
On the Baptism of heretics. Wh) Arian worse than
other heresies.
31. But the sentiment of Truth ^ in this
matter must not be hidden, but must have high
utterance. For the Word of God was not made
for us, but rather we for Him, and ' in Him all
things were created ^' Nor for that we were
weak, was He strong and made by the Father
alone, that He might frame us by means of Him
as an instrument ; perish the thought ! it is
not so. For though it had seemed good to
God not to make things originate, still had the
Word been no less with God, and the Father in
Him. At the same time, things originate could
not without the Word be brought to be ; hence
they were made through Him, — and reasonably.
For since the Word is the Son of God by nature
proper to His essence, and is from Him, and
in Him 3, as He said Himself, the creatures
could not have come to be, except through
Him. For as the light enlightens all things by
its radiance, and without its radiance nothing
would be illuminated, so also the P^ather, as by
4 e/oierot Kox vavnai; vauTt'ai sea-sickness; Epictetus, in a
somewhat similar sense, ' There is great danger of pouring forth
straightway, what one has not digested.' Enckirid. 46.
I § 35, note 2. * Col. i. 16. 3 De Syn. 42, note i.
DISCOURSE II.
365
a hand *, in the Word wrought all things, and
without Him makes nothing. For instance,
God said, as Moses relates, ' Let there be
light,' and ' Let the waters be gathered to-
gether,' and ' let the dry land appear,' and
' Let Us make man s ; ' as also Holy David in
the Psalm, ' He spake and they were made ; He
commanded and they were created ^.' And He
spoke 7, not that, as in the case of men, some
under-worker might hear, and learning the will
of Him who spoke might go away and do it ;
for this is what is proper to creatures, but it is
unseemly so to think or speak of the Word.
For the Word of God is Framer and Maker, and
He is the Father's Will 8. Hence it is that
divine Scripture says not that one heard and
answered, as to the manner or nature of the
things which He wished made ; but God only
said, ' Let it become,' and he adds, ' And it
became ; ' for what He thought good and coun-
selled, that forthwith the Word began to do and
to finish. For when God commands others,
whether the Angels, or converses with Moses, or
commands Abraham, then the hearer answers;
and the one says, 'Whereby shall I know 9?'
and the other, ' Send some one else ^°;' and
again, ' If they ask me, what is His Name, what
shall I say to them ^^ ? ' and the Angel said to
Zacharias, 'Thus saith the Lord^^;' and he
asked the Lord, ' O Lord of hosts, how long
wilt Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem ?' and
waits to hear good words and comfortable.
For each of these has the Mediator '3 Word,
and the Wisdom of God which makes known
the will of the Father. But when that Word
Himself works and creates, then there is no
questioning and answer, for the Father is in
Him and the Word in the Father ; but it suf-
fices to will, and the work is done ; so that the
word ' He said ' is a token of the will for our
sake, and ' It was so,' denotes the work which
4 (OS Sta xetpos. vid. su^r. p. 153, note 6 And so in Orat. iv.
26, a. de Incarn. contr. Arian. 12. a. Kparaia. x^'P ■"'oi) Trarpo's.
Method, ife Cnat. ap. Phot. cod. 235. p. 937. Iren. Hcer. iv. 20.
n. I. V. I fin. and. 5. n. 2. and 6. n. i. Clement. Protrept. p. 93.
(ed. Potter.) Tertull. contr. Hermog.^s- Cypr. Testim. ii. 4. Euseb.
in Psahn cviii. 27. Clement. Recogn. viii. 43. Clement. Hoti. xvi.
12. Cyril. Alex, frequently, e.g. in Joan. pp. 876, 7. Thesaur.
p. 154. Pseudo-Basil, x^'p 5')M-'0''P7"''?> contr. Eunotn. v. p. 297.
Job. ap. Phut. 222. p. 582. and August. in.Joa.nn. 48, 7. though he
prefers another use of the word.
5 Gen. i. 3, 9, 26. * Ps. clxviii. 5.
7 Vid. de Deer. 9. contr. Gent. 46. Iren. Hcer. iii. 8. n. 3.
Origen contr. Ceh. ii. 9. Tertull. adv. Prax. 12. fin. Patres
Antioch. aji. Routh t. 2. p. 468. Prosper in Psalm. 148. (149.)
Basil, de i>p. S. n. 20- Hilar. Trin. iv. 16. vid. supr. § 22, note.
Didyra. de Sp.S. 36. August, de Trin. i. 26. On this mystery vid.
Petav. Trin. vi. 4.
8 ^ovA.r). And so /SouAtictis presently ; and Cfaaa jSouArj, supr. 2.
and Orat. iii. 63. fin. and so Cyril Tlies. p. 54, who uses it ex-
pressly (as it is always used by implication), in contrast to the
Kard /SouArjtrii' of the Arians, though Athan. uses koto, to jSov^rj^ia,
e.g. Orat. iii. 31. where vid. note; avros roi) ■na.Tpo% de\r)fi.a. Nyss.
contr. Eunotn. xii. p. 345. The principle to be observed in the
use of such words is this ; that we must ever speak of the Father's
will, command, &c., and the Son's fulfilment, assent, &c., as one
act. vid. notes on Orat. iii. 11 and 15. infr. [Cf. p. 87. note 2.]
9 Gen. XV. 8. »o Ex. iv. 13. •' lb. iii. 13.
«2 Zech. i. 3, 12. >3 § 16, note 7.
is done through the Word and the Wisdom, in
which Wisdom also is the Will of the Father.
And ' God said ' is explained in ' the Word,' for,
he says, 'Thou hast made all things in
Wisdom ; ' and ' By the Word of the Lord
were the heavens made fast ;' and ' There is
one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things,
and we by Him^'
32. It is plain from this that the Arians are
not fighting with us about their heresy ; but
while they pretend us, their real fight is against
the Godhead Itself. For if the voice were
ours which says, ' This is My Son ^,' small were
our complaint of them ; but if it is the Father's
voice, and the disciples heard it, and the Son
too says of Himself, ' Before all the mountains
He begat me ?,' are they not fighting against
God, as the giants* in story, having their
tongue, as the Psalmist says, a sharp sword 5
for irreligion? For they neither feared the
voice of the Father, nor reverenced the Sa-
viour's words, nor trusted the Saints, one of
whom writes, ' Who being the Brightness of
His glory and the Expression of His subsist-
ence,' and ' Christ the power of God and the
Wisdom of God^;' and another says in the
Psalm, 'With Thee is the well of Hfe, and
in Thy Light shall we see light,' and ' Thou
madest all things in Wisdom ^ ;' and the Pro-
phets say, ' And the Word of the Lord came
to me^;' and John, 'In the beginning was the
Word ;' and Luke, ' As they delivered them
unto us which from the beginning were eye-
witnesses and ministers of the Word 9;' and as
David again says, ' He sent His Word and
healed them ^°.' All these passages proscribe
in every light the Arian heresy, and signify the
eternity of the Word, and that He is not foreign
but proper to the Father's Essence. For
when saw any one light without radiance ? or
who dares to say that the expression can be
different from the subsistence? or has not
a man himself lost his mind" who even
entertains the thought that God was ever
without Reason and without Wisdom ? For
such illustrations and such images has Scrip-
ture proposed, that, considering the inability
of human nature to comprehend God, we
might be able to form ideas even from these
however poorly and dimly, and as far as is
attainable ^^ And as the creation contains
I Ps. civ. 24 ; xxxiii. 6 ; i Cor. viii. 6. ■ Vid. Matt,
xvii. 5. 3 Prov. viii. 25, LXX.
4 Tovs /xvflevofjieVovs ytyai/Tas, vid. supr. de Deer. fin. Also us
Toi>s •yiyai/Ttts, Orat. iii. 42. In Hist. Arian. 74. he calls Con-
stantius a yt'yas. The same idea is implied in the word fleo/utaxos
so frequently applied to Arianism, as in this sentence.
5 Ps. Ivii. 4. 6 Heb. i. 3; i Cor. i. 24. 7 Ps. xxxvi. 9;
civ. 24. o Jer. ii. i. 9 John i. i ; Luke i. a. '° Ps.
cvii. 20.
II vid. p. 150, n. 6, also Gent. 40 fin. where what is here, as
commonly, applied to the Arians, is, before the rise of Arianism,
applied to unbelievers.
12 Vid. de Deer. 12, 16, notes i. 26, n. 2, ii. 36, n. i. dt Syn,
366
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
abundant matter for the knowledge of the
being of a God and a Providence (' for by the
greatness and beauty of the creatures pro-
portionably the Maker of them is seen ^3')^ and
we learn from them without asking for voices,
but hearing the Scriptures we believe, and
surveying the very order and the harmony of
all things, we acknowledge that He is Maker
and Lord and God of all, and apprehend His
marvellous Providence and governance over all
things ; so in like manner about the Son's
Godhead, what has been above said is suffi-
cient, and it becomes superfluous, or rather it
is very mad to dispute about it, or to ask in an
heretical way. How can the Son be from
eternity ? or how can He be from the Father's
Essence, yet not a part ? since what is said
to be of another, is a part of him ; and what is
divided, is not whole.
33. These are the evil sophistries of the
heterodox ; yet, though we have already shewn
their shallowness, the exact sense of these pas-
sages themselves and the force of these illustra-
tions will serve to shew the baseless nature of
their loathsome tenet. For we see that reason is
ever, and is from him and proper to his es-
sence, whose reason it is, and does not admit
a before and an after. So again we see that
the radiance from the sun is proper to it, and
the sun's essence is not divided or impaired ;
but its essence is whole and its radiance per-
fect and whole ', yet without impairing the
essence of light, but as a true offspring from it.
We understand in like manner that the Son is
begotten not from without but from the Father,
and while the Father remains whole, the Ex-
pression of His Subsistence is ever, and pre-
serves the Father's likeness and unvarying
Image, so that he who sees Him, sees in Him
the Subsistence too, of which He is the Ex-
pression. And from the operation of the
Expression we understand the true Godhead
of the Subsistence, as the Saviour Himself
teaches when He says, ' The Father who
dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works ^ ' which
I do; and ' I and the Father are one,' and ' I
in the Father and the Father in Me 3.' There-
fore let this Christ-opposing heresy attempt
41, n. I. In ilbidOmnia-i fin. vid. also 6. Aug. Confess, xiii. ii.
And again, Trin- xv. 39. And S. Basil contr. Eunotn. ii. 17.
'3 Wisd. xiii. 5.
' The Second Person in the Holy Trinity is not a quality of
attribute or relation, but the One Eternal Substance ; not a part of
the First Person, but whole or entire God ; nor does the generation
impair the Father's Substance, which is, antecedently to it, whole
and entire God. Thus there are two Persons, in Each Other
inefifably, Each being wholly one and the same Divine Substance,
yet not being merely separate aspects of the Same, Each being
God as absolutely as if there were no other Divine Person but
Himself. Such a statement indeed is not only a contradiction
in the terms used, but in our ideas, yet not therefore a contra-
diction in fact ; unless indeed any one will say that human words
can express in one formula, or human thought embrace in one idea,
the unknown and infinite God. Basil, cotitr. Eun. i. 10. vid. infr,
§ 38, n. 3. 2 John xiv. 10. 3 John x. 30.
first to divide + the examples found in things
originate, and say, ' Once the sun was without
his radiance,' or, ' Radiance is not proper to
the essence of hght,' or 'It is indeed proper,
but it is a part of light by division ; and then
let it divide Reason, and pronounce that it is
foreign to mind, or that once it was not, or
that it was not proper to its essence, or that
it is by division a part of mind. And so of His
Expression and the Light and the Power, let it
do violence to these as in the case of Reason
and Radiance ; and instead let it imagine what
it will 5. But if such extravagance be impos-
sible for them, are they not greatly beside
themselves, presumptuously intruding into what
is higher than things originate and their own
nature, and essaying impossibilities^?
34. For if in the case of these originate and
irrational things offsprings are found which are
not parts of the essences from which they
are, nor subsist with passion, nor impair the
essences of their originals, are they not mad
again in seeking and conjecturing parts and
passions in the instance of the immaterial and
true God, and ascribing divisions to Him who
is beyond passion and change, thereby to
perplex the ears of the simple ^ and to pervert
them from the Truth ? for who hears of a son
but conceives of that which is proper to the
father's essence ? who heard, in his first
catechising 2, that God has a Son and has
made all things by His proper Word, but
understood it in that sense in which we now
mean it? who on the rise of this odious heresy
of the Arians, was not at once startled at what
he heard, as strange 3, and a second sowing,
besides that Word which had been sown from
the beginning? For what is sown in every
soul from the beginning is that God has a Son,
the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, that is.
His Image and Radiance ; from which it at
once follows that He is always ; that He is
from the Father ; that He is like ; that He is
the eternal offspring of His essence ; and
there is no idea involved in these of creature
or work. But when the man who is an enemy,
while men slept, made a second sowing ♦, of
'He is a creature,' and 'There was once when
He was not/ and 'How can it be?' thence-
forth the wicked heresy of Christ's enemies
rose as tares, and forthwith, as bereft of every
6 In illud Omn. 6. init.
* De Deer. 7, n. 2 ; De Syn.
4 SieXftv, vid. § 25, note 3.
5 Hist. Ar. 52, n. 4.
' Cf. p. 69, notes 7 and 8.
3, n. 2 ; Or. i. 8.
3 He here makes the test of the truth of explicit doctrinal
statements to lie in their not shocking, or their answering to the
religious sense of the Christian.
4 Vid. supr. de Deer. 2. n. 6. TertuUian de Carn. Christ. 17.
S. Leo, as Athan. makes ' seed' in the parable apply peculiarly to
faith in distinction to obedience. Serin. 69. 5 inic.
DISCOURSE II.
367
right thought, they meddle s like robbers, and
venture to say, ' How can the Son always
exist with the Father?' for men come of men
and are sons, after a time ; and the father is
thirty years old, when the son begins to be,
being begotten ; and in short of every son of
man, it is true that he was not before his
generation. And again they whisper, ' How
can the Son be Word, or the Word be God's
Image ? for the word of men is composed of
syllables ^, and only signifies the speaker's will,
and then is over 7 and is lost.'
35. They then afresh, as if forgetting the
proofs which have been already urged against
them, ' pierce themselves through ^ ' with these
bonds of irreligion, and thus argue. But the
word of truth ^ confutes them as follows : — if
they were disputing concerning any man, then
iet them exercise reason in this human way,
both concerning His Word and His Son ; but
if of God who created man, no longer let them
entertain human thoughts, but others which are
above human nature. Forsuch as he that begets,
such of necessity is the offspring ; and such as
is the Word's Father, such must be also His
Word. Now man, begotten in time, in time 3
also himself begets the child ; and whereas
from nothing he came to be, therefore his word+
also is over and continues not. But God is not
as man, as Scripture has said ; but is existing
and is ever; therefore also His Word is existing s
and is everlastingly with the Father, as radiance
of light. And man's word is composed of
syllables, and neither lives nor operates any-
thing, but is only significant of the speaker's
intention, and does but go forth and go by, no
more to appear, since it was not at all before
it was spoken ; wherefore the word of man
neither lives nor operates anything, nor in short
is man. And this happens to it, as I said
before, because man who begets it, has his
nature out of nothing. But God's Word is not
merely pronounced, as one may say, nor a
sound of accents, nor by His Son is meant His
command ^ ; but as radiance of light, so is
He perfect offspring from perfect 7. Hence He
is God also, as being God's Image ; for ' the
Word was God ^,' says Scripture. And man's
5 irepiepyafoi/Tat. This can scarcely be, as Newman suggests,
an error of the press for TrepUpxofT<"- The Latin translates ' cir-
cumire coeperunt.
6 Orai. iv. i. 7 ireirauTai, Orat. iv. 2. ' Vid. 1 Tim.
vi. 10.
2 o rijs dA.r)96i'as \6yoi eAeyx*'- This and the like are usual
forms of speech with Athan. and others. In some instances the
words aK^Siia, Aoyo?, &c., are almost synonymous with the Regiila
Fidei; vid. TrapoTrji' aAijectai/, in/r. 36. and Origen de Princ. Prief.
1. and 2. 3 Orat. i. 21.
4 For this contrast between the Divine Word and the human
which is Its shadow, vid. also Orai. iv. i. circ. fin. Iren. Httr. ii.
13. n. 8. Origen. in Joan. i. p. 25. e. Euseb Demonstr v 5. p. 230.
Cyril, Cat. xi. 10. Basil, Horn. xvi. 3. Nysseii contr. Eunoin. xii
p. 350. Orat. Cat. i. p. 478. Damasc. F. O- i. 6. August, in Psahn
acliv. 5. 5 Vid. Serap. i. 28, a * § 31, n. 7.
7 De Syn. 24, n. 9 ; infr. 56. note * John i. i.
words avail not for operation; hence man
works not by means of words but of hands, for
they have being, and man's word subsists not.
But the ' Word of God,' as the Apostle says, * is
living and powerful and sharper than any two-
edged sword, piercing even to the dividing
asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and
marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and
intents of the heart. Neither is there any
creature that is not manifest in His sight ; but
all things are naked and opened unto the eyes
of Him with whom we have to do 9.' He is
then Framer of all, ' and without Him was made
not one thing '°,' nor can anything be made
without Him.
36. Nor must we ask why the Word of God
is not such as our word, considering God is not
such as we, as has been before said ; nor again
is it right to seek how the word is from God, or
how He is God's radiance, or how God begets,
and what is the manner of His begetting^. For
a man must be beside himself to venture on such
points ; since a thing ineffable and proper to
God's nature, and known to Him alone and to
the Son, this he demands to be explained in
words. It is all one as if they sought where
God is, and how God is, and of what nature the
Father is. But as to ask such questions is
irreligious, and argues an ignorance of God, so
it is not holy to venture such questions concern-
ing the generation of the Son of God, nor to
measure God and His Wisdom by our own
nature and infirmity. Nor is a person at liberty
on that account to swerve in his thoughts from
the truth, nor, if any one is perplexed in such
inquiries, ought he to disbelieve what is written.
For it is better in perplexity to be silent and
believe, than to disbelieve on account of the
perplexity : for he who is perplexed may in
some way obtain mercy ^, because, though he
has questioned, he has yet kept quiet ; but
when a man is led by his perplexity into form-
ing for himself doctrines which beseem not, and
utters what is unworthy of God, such daring
incurs a sentence without mercy. For in such
perplexities divine Scripture is able to afford
him some relief, so as to take rightly what is
written, and to dwell upon our word as an
illustration ; that as it is proper to us and is
from us, and not a work external to us, so also
God's Word is proper to Him and from Him,
and is not a work ; and yet is not like the word
9 Heb. iv. 12, 13. 10 Jolin i. 3.
I Eusebius has some forcible remarks on this subject. As, be
says, we do not know how God can create out of nothing, so we
are utterly ignorant of the Divine Generation. It is written. He
who believes, not he who knows, has eternal life. The sun's
radiance itself is but an earthly image, and gives us no true idea
of that which is above all images. Eccl. Theol. 1. 12. So has
S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. 8. vid. also Hippol. in Noet. 16. Cyril,
Cat. xi. II. and 19. and Origen, according to Mosheim, Ante
Const, p 619. And instances in Petav tie Trin. v. 6. § 2. and 3.
a Cl. August. Ep. 43. init. vid. also dc Bapt. contr. Don. iv. 23.
Z6^
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
of man, or else we must suppose God to be man.
For observe, many and various are men's words
which pass away day by day ; because those
that come before others continue not, but
vanish. Now this happens because their
authors are men, and have seasons which
pass away, and ideas which are successive ;
and what strikes them first and second, that
they utter ; so that they have many words, and
yet after them all nothing at all remaining ; for
the speaker ceases, and his word forthwith
is spent. But God's Word is one and the
same, and, as it is written, * The Word of God
endureth for ever 3,' not changed, not before or
after other, but existing the same always. For
it was fitting, whereas God is One, that His
Image should be One also, and His Word One,
and One His Wisdom ^
37. Wherefore I am in wonder how, whereas
God is One, these men introduce, after their
private notions, many images and wisdoms and
words 5, and say that the Father's proper and
natural Word is other than the Son, by whom
He even made the Son ^ and that He who is
really Son is but notionally 7 called Word, as
vine, and way, and door, and tree of life ; and
that He is called Wisdom also in name, the
proper and true Wisdom of the Father, which
coexist ingenerately ^ with Him, being other
than the Son, by which He even made the Son,
and named Him Wisdom as partaking of it.
This they have not confined to words, but
Arius composed in his Thalia, and the Sophist
Asterius wrote, what we have stated above,
as follows : ' Blessed Paul said not that he
preached Christ, the Power of God or the Wis-
dom of God, but without the addition of the
article, 'God's power' and 'God's wisdom?,'
thus preaching that the proper Power of God
Himself which is natural to Him, and co-existent
in Him ingenerately, is something besides, gene-
rative indeed of Christ, and creative of the whole
world, concerning which he teaches in his
Epistle to the Romans thus, — ' The invisible
3 Vid. Ps. cxix. 89.
4 Vid. suj>r. 35. Orat. iv. i. also presently, ' He is likeness
and image of the sole and true God, being Himself also,' 49.
lx.6vo<: iv fiovta, Orat. iii. 21. oAo? oKov eiKwi/. Scrap, i. 16, a.
'The Offspring of the Ingenerate,' says S. Hilary, 'is One from
One, True from True, Living from Living, Perfect from Perfect,
Power of Power, Wisdom of Wisdom, Glory of Glory.' de Trin. ii.
8. TcAeios teAeioi/ yeyeVi'rjKei/, TTceiJfia ■avivfj.a.. Epiph. Heer. p. 495.
' As Light from Light, and Life from Life, and Good from Good ;
so from Eternal Eternal. Nyss. contr. Eunom. i. p. 164. App.
5 woAAol Ao-yot, vid. de Deer. 16, n. 4. infr. 39 init. and ov5' ck
TToXKwy ett, Sent. D. 25. a. also Ep. ./^g. 14. c. Origen in Joan.
torn. ii. 3. Euseb. Detnonstr, v. 5. p. 229 fin. contr. Marc. p. 4
fin. contr. Sabell. init. August, in Joan. Tract, i. 8. also vid.
Philo's use of Aoyoi for Angels as commented on by Burton,
Bampt. Lect. p. 556. The heathens called Mercury by the name
of Ao-yo5. vid. Benedictine note f. in Justin, Ap. i. 21.
6 This was the point in which Arians and [Marcellus] agreed,
vid in/r. Orat. iv. init. also §§ 22, 40, and de Deer. 24, n. 9, also
Sent D. ■is-Ep. Mg. 14 fin. Epiph. Hter. 72. p. 835. b.
7 That is, they allowed Him to be 'really Son,' and argued
that He was but ' notionally Word. vid. § 19, n. 3.
^ ayevvwTws, vid. Euseb. Ecel. Theol. p. 106. d.
9 1 Cor. i. 24.
things of Him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made, even His eternal Power and
Godhead '°.' For as no one would say that the
Godhead there mentioned was Christ, but the
Father Himself, so, as I think, ' His eternal
Power and Godhead also is not the Only
Begotten Son, but the Father who begat
Him ^^' And he teaches that there is another
power and wisdom of God, manifested through
Christ. And shortly after the same Asterius
says, ' However His eternal power and wisdom,
which truth argues to be without beginning and
ingenerate, the same must surely be one. For
there are many wisdoms which are one by one
created by Him, of whom Christ is the first-
born and only-begotten ; all however equally
depend on their Possessor. And all the powers
are rightly called His who created and uses
them : — as the Prophet says that the locust,
which came to be a divine punishment of
human sins, was called by God Himself not
only a power, but a great power ; and blessed
David in most of the Psalms invites, not the
Angels alone, but the Powers to praise God.'
38. Now are they not worthy of all hatred
for merely uttering this ? for if, as they hold,
He is Son, not because He is begotten of the
Father and proper to His Essence, but that
He is called Word only because of things
rational S and Wisdom because of things gifted
with wisdom, and Power because of things
gifted with power, surely He must be named
a Son because of those who are made sons :
and perhaps because there are things exist-
ing. He has even His existence^, in our no-
tions only 3, And then after all what is He?
for He is none of these Himself, if they are
but His names '^ : and He has but a semblance
of being, and is decorated with these names
10 Rom. i. 20.
11 Or. i. II, n. 7. » Xoyifca, vid. Ep. .^g- 13 fin.
2 Of course this line of thought consistently followed, leads
to a kind of Pantheism ; for what is the Supreme Being, according
to it, but an ideal standard of perfection, the sum total of all that
we see excellent in the world in the highest degree, a creation of
ovir minds, without real objective existence? The true view of our
Lord's titles, on the other hand, is that He is That properly and in
perfection, of which in measure and degree the creatures partake
from and in Him. Vid. supr. de Deer. 17, p. 5.
3 Ku-T iwit'oiav , in idea or notion. This is a phrase of very
frequent occurrence, both in Athan. and other writers. We have
found it already just above, and de Syn. 15. Or. i. 9, also Orat.
iv. 2, 3. de Sent. D. 2, Ep. yEg 12, 13. 14. It denotes our idea
or conception of a thing in contrast to the thing itself Thus, the
sun is to a savage a bright circle in the sky ; a man is a ' rational
animal," according to a certain process of abstraction ; a herb may
be medicine upon one division, food in another ; virtue may be
called a mean ; and faith is to one man an argumentative conclusion,
to another a moral peculiarity, good or bad. In like manner, the
Almighty is in reality most simple and uncompounded. without
parts, passions, attributes, or properties ; yet we speak of Him as
good or holy, or as angry or pleased, denoting some particular
aspect in which our infirmity views, in which also it can view,
what is infinite and incomprehensible. That is. He is kct eni-
voiav holy or merciful, being in reality a Unity which is all mer-
cifulness and also all holiness, not in the way of qualities but as
one indivisible perfection ; which is too great for us to conceive
as It is. < S 19.
1
DISCOURSE II.
36g
from us. Rather this is some recklessness of
the devil, or worse, if they are not unwilling
that they should truly subsist themselves, but
think that God's Word is but in name. Is
not this portentous, to say that Wisdom co-
exists with the Father, yet not to say that this
is the Christ, but that there are many created
powers and wisdoms, of which one is the Lord
whom they go on to cornpare to the caterpillar
and locust ? and are they not profligate, who,
when they hear us say that the Word coexists
with the Father, forthwith murmur out, * Are
you not speaking of two Unoriginates ? ' yet in
speaking themselves of ' His Unoriginate Wis-
dom,' do not see that they have already in-
curred themselves the charge which they so
rashly urge against us s ? Moreover, what folly
is there in that thought of theirs, that the
Unoriginate Wisdom- coexisting with God is
God Himself! for what coexists does not co-
exist with itself, but with some one else, as
the Evangelists say of the Lord, that He was
together with His disciples ; for He was not
together with Himself, but with His disciples; —
unless indeed they would say that God is of
a compound nature, having wisdom a con-
stituent or complement of His Essence, un-
originate as well as Himself^, which moreover
they pretend to be the framer of the world,
that so they may deprive the Son of the
framing of it. For there is nothing they would
not maintain, sooner than hold the truth con-
cerning the Lord.
39. For where at all have they found in
divine Scripture, or from whom have they
heard, that there is another Word and another
Wisdom besides this Son, that they should
frame to themselves such a doctrine? True,
indeed, it is written, * Are not My words like
fire, and like a hammer that breaketh the rock
in pieces^?' and in the Proverbs, 'I will make
known My words unto you^;' but these are
precepts and commands, which God has spoken
to the saints through His proper and only
true Word, concerning which the Psalmist
S The Anomcean in Max. Dial. i. a. urges against the Catholic
that, if the Son exists in the Father, God is compound. Athan.
here retorts that Asterius speaks of Wisdom as a really existing
thing in the Divine Mind. Vid. next note.
* On this subject vid. Orat. iv. n. 2. Nothing is more re-
markable than the confident tone in which Athan. accuses Arians
as here, and [Marcellus] in Orat. iv. 2. of considering the Divine
Nature as compound, as if the Catholics were in no respect open
to such a charge. Nor are they ; though in avoiding it, they are
led to enunciate the most profound and ineffable mystery. Vid.
supr. § 33, n. I. The Father is the One Simple Entire Divine
Being, and so is the Son ; They do in no sense share divinity
between 7'hein ; Each is oAos Oed;. This is not ditheism or
tritheism, for Uiey are the same God ; nor is it Sabellianism, for
They are etsrnally distinct and substantive Persons ; but it is
a depth and height beyond our intellect, hosv what is Two in so
full a sense can also in so full a sense be One, or how the Divine
Nature does not come under number, vid. notes on Orat. iii. 27.
and 36. Thus, ' being uncompounded in nature,' says Athan.
' He is Father of One Only Son.' de Deer. 11. In truth the dis-
tinction into Persons, as Petavius remarks, ' avails especially
towards the unity and simplicity of God.' vid. de Deo, ii. 4, 8»
I Jer. xxiii. 29. 2 Prov. i. 23.
said, ' I have refrained my feet from every evil
way, that I may keep Thy words3.' Such
words accordingly the Saviour signifies to be
distinct from Himself, when He says in His own
person, 'The words which I have spoken unto
you 4.' For certainly such words are not off-
springs or sons, nor are there so many words
that frame the world, nor so many images
of the One God, nor so many who have be-
come men for us, nor as if from many such
there were one who has become flesh, as
John says ; but as being the only Word
of God was He preached by John, ' The
Word was made flesh,' and 'all things were
made by Hims.' Wherefore of Him alone,
our Lord Jesus Christ, and of His oneness
with the Father, are written and set forth the
testimonies, both of the Father signifying that
the Son is One, and of the saints, aware
of this ancf saying that the Word is One,
and that He is Only-Begotten. And His
works also are set forth ; for all things, visible
and invisible, have been brought to be through
Him, and ' without Him was made not one
thing^' But concerning another or any one
else they have not a thought, nor frame to
themselves words or wisdoms, of which neither •
name nor deed are signified by Scripture, but
are named by these only. For it is their in-
vention and Christ-opposing surmise, and they
make the most? of the name of the Word
and the Wisdom ; and framing to themselves
others, they deny the true Word of God,
and the real and only Wisdom of the Father,
and thereby, miserable men, rival the Mani-
chees. For they too, when they behold the
works of God, deny Him the only and true
God, and frame to themselves another, whom
they can shew neither by work, nor in any
testimony drawn from the divine oracles.
40. Therefore, if neither in the divine oracles
is found another wisdom besides this Son, nor
from the fathers' have we heard of any such,
yet they have confessed and written of the
Wisdom coexisting with the Father unorigin-
ately, proper to Him, and the Framer of the
world, this must be the Son who even accord-
ing to them is eternally coexistent with the
Father. For He is Framer of all, as it is
written, ' In Wisdom hast Thou made them
all^' Nay, Asterius himself, as if forgetting
what he wrote before, afterwards, in Caiaphas'ss
fashion, involuntarily, when urging the Greeks,
instead of naming many wisdoms, or the cater-
pillar, confesses but one, in these words; —
' God the Word is one, but many are the
3 Ps. cxix. 101. 4 Joh. vi. 63.
S John i. 14, 3. 6 Cf. Orat. i. 19, note 5.
7 KaTa)jpiovTaL, vid. supr. p. 154, note 3. ' lb. note 2.
2 Ps. CIV. 24. 3 Vid. John xi. 50.
VOL. TV.
B b
370
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
things rational ; and one is the essence and
nature of Wisdom, but many are the thimgs
wise and beautiful.' And soon afterwards
he says again : — ' Who are they whom they
honour with the title of God's children? for
they will not say that they too are words, nor
maintain that there are many wisdoms. For
it is not possible, whereas the Word is one,
and Wisdom has been set forth as one, to
dispense to the multitude of children the
Essence of the Word, and to bestow on them
the appellation of Wisdom.' It is not then
at all wonderful, that the Arians should battle
with the truth, when they have collisions with
their own principles and conflict with each
other, at one time saying that there are many
wisdoms, at another maintaining one ; at one
time classing wisdom with the caterpillar, at
another saying that it coexists with the Father
and is proper to Him ; now thaf the Father
alone is unoriginate, and then again that His
Wisdom and His Power are unoriginate also.
And they battle with us for saying that the
Word of God is ever, yet forget their own
•doctrines, and say themselves that Wisdom
coexists with God unoriginatelyt So dizzied s
are they in all these matters, denying the true
Wisdom, and inventing one which is not,
as the Manichees who make to themselves
another God, after denying Him that is.
41. But let the other heresies and the Mani-
chees also know that the Father of the Christ is
One, and is Lord and Maker of the creation
through His proper Word. And let the Ario-
maniacs know in particular, that the Word of
God is One, being the only Son proper and
genuine from His Essence, and having with
His Father the oneness of Godhead indivisible,
as we said many times, being taught it by
the Saviour Himself. Since, were it not so,
wherefore through Him does the Father create,
and in Him reveal Himself to whom He will,
and illuminate them? or why too in the
baptismal consecration is the Son named to-
gether with the Father? For if they say that
the Father is not all-sufficient, then their
answer is irrehgious ^, but if He be, for this
it is right to say, what is the need of the
Son for framing the worlds, or for the holy
♦ Asterius held, i. that there was an Attribute called Wisdom ;
■2. that the Son was created by and called after that Attribute ; or
I. that Wisdom was ingenerate and eternal, 2. that there were
created wisdoms, words, powers many, of which the Son was one.
5 (TKOToSivttexri, Orat. iii. 42. init.
6 He says that it is contrary to all our notions of religion that
Almighty God cannot create, enlighten, address, and unite Him-
self to His creatures immediately. This seems to be implied in
saying that the Son was created for creation, illumination, &c. ;
whereas in the Catholic view the Son is but that Divine Person
who in the Economy of grace is creator, enlightener, &c. .God
is represented all-perfect but acting according to a certain divine
order. Tliis is explained just below. Here the remark is in point
about the right and wrong sense of the words ' commanding,'
♦obeying,' &c. suj>r. § 31, note 7.
laver? For what fellowship is there between
creature and Creator ? or why is a thing made
classed with the Maker in the consecration of
all of us ? or why, as you hold, is faith in one
Creator and in one creature delivered to us ?
for if it was that we might be joined to the God-
head, what need of the creature? but if that
we might be united to the Son a creature, super-
fluous, according to you, is this naming of the
Son in Baptism, for God who made Him a Son
is able to make us sons alsO; Besides, if the Son
be a; creature, the nature of rational creatures
being one, no help will come to creatures
from a creature 7, since all^ need grace from
God. We said a few words just now on the fit-
ness that all things should be made by Him; but
since the course of the discussion has led us
also to mention holy Baptism,, it is necessary
to state, as I think and believe,, that the Son is
named with the Father, not as if the Father
were not all-sufficient, not without meaning,
and by accident ; but, since H2 is God's Word
and own Wisdom, arad being His Radiance,
is ever with the Father, therefore it is impos-
sible, if the Father bestows grace, that He
should not give it in the Son, for the Son is in
the Father as the radiance in, tiie lighl. For,
not as if in need, but as a Father in His own
Wisdom hath God founded the earth, and made
all things in the Word which is from Him, and
in the Son confirms the Holy Laver. For
where the Father is;>. there is the Son, and
where the light, there the radiancs; and as
what the Father worketh, He worketh through
the Son 9,, and the Lord Himself sajs, ' What I
see the Father do, that do I also ;' so also when
baptism is given, whom t-ae Father baptizes,
him the Son baptizes ; and whom the Son
baptizes, he is consecrated in the Holy Ghost ^''.
And again as when the sun shines, one might
say that the radiance illuminates, for the light
is one and indivisible, nor can be detached, so
where the Father is or is named, there plainly
is the Son also ; and is the Father named in
Baptism ? then must the Son be uamed with
Him".
7 § 16, note 7. • Supr. p. 162, notes,
9 Vid. notes on Orat. iii. i — 15. e.g. and 11 and 15.
10 Orat. iii. 15. note.
" Vid. supr. 33, note i. and ttotes on iii. 3 — 6. 'When the
Father is mentioned, His Word is with Him, and the Spirit who
is in the Son. And if the Son be named, in the San is the Father,
and the Spirit is not external to the Word.' ad Sernp. i. 14.
and vid. Hil. Trin. vii. 31. Passages like these are distinct
from such as the one quoted from, Athan. supr. p. 76, note
3, where it is said that in 'Father' is implied 'Son,' i.e.
argumentatively as a correlative, vid. Sent. D. 17. de Deer.
19, n. 6. The latter accordingly Eusebius does not scruple to
admit in Sahell. i- ap. Sivm t. i. p. 8, a. ' Pater statim, ut dictus
fuit pater, requirit ista ziox filium, &c. ; ' for here no itepixuprjcni
is implied, which is the doctrine of the text, and is not the doctrine
of an Arian who considered the Son an instrument. _ Yet Petavius
ob.serves as to the very "word nepix. that one of its first senses
in ecclesiastical writers was this which Arians would not disclaim ;
its use to express the Catholic doctrine here spoken of was later,
vid. de Trill, iv. 16.
DISCOURSE II.
371
42. Therefore, when He made His promise
to the saints, He thus spoke ; * I and the
Father will come, and make Our abode
in him ; ' and again, ' that, as I and Thou are
One, so they may be one in Us.' And the
grace given is one, given from the Father in the
Son, as Paul writes in every Epistle, * Grace
unto you, and peace from God our Father and
the Lord Jesus Christ ^' For the light must be
■with the ray, and the radiance must be contem-
' plated together with its own light. Whence
the Jews, as denying the Son as well as they,
have not the Father either ; for, as having left
the ' Fountain of Wisdom 2,' as Baruch re-
proaches them, they put from them the Wisdom
springing from it, our Lord Jesus Christ (for
' Christ,' says the Apostle, is ' God's power and
God's wisdom 3)/ when they said, ' We have no
king but Caesar 4.' The Jews then have the
penal award of their denial ; for their city as
well as their reasoning came to nought. And
these too hazard the fulness of the mystery, I
mean Baptism ; for if the consecration is given
to us into the Name of Father and Son, and
they do not confess a true Father, because they
deny what is from Him and like His Essence,
and deny also the true Son, and name another
of their own framing as created out of nothing,
is not the rite administered by them altogether
-empty and unprofitable, making a show, but in
reality being no help towards religion ? IJor the
Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but
into Creator and creature, and into Maker and
works. And as a creature is other than the
Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed to be
given by them, is other than the truth, though
they pretend to name the Name of the Father
and the Son, because of the words of Scripture,
For not he who simply says, ' O Lord,' gives
Baptism ; but he who with the Name has also
the right faith ^. On this account therefore
our Saviour also did not simply command to
baptize, but first says, ' Teach ; ' then thus :
* Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son,
and Holy Ghost ; ' that the right faith might
follow upon learning, and together with faith
might come the consecration of Baptism.
43. There are many other heresies too,
"which use the words only, but not in a right
sense, as I have said, nor with sound faith ',
and in consequence the water which they
administer is unprofitable, as deficient in
» Vid. John xiv. 23, and John xvii. 21 ; Rom. i. 7, &c.
3 Bar. iii. 12. 3 i Cor. i. 24. * John xix. 15.
5 £>e Deer. 31 ; Or. i. 34.
* "XVi^ prhiia facie sense of this passage is certainly unfavour-
able to the validity of heretical baptism ; vid. Coust. Font. Rovi.
Ep. p. 227. Voss. de Bapt. Disj>. 19 and 20. Forbes Instruct.
Theol. X. 2, 3, and 12. Hooker's Eccl. Pol. v. 62. § 5 — 11. On
Arian Baptism in particular vid. Jablonski's Diss. Opusc. t. iv.
jp. 113. [And, in violent contrast to Ath:in., Siricius (bishop of
Rome) letter to Himeritts, a. ij 385. (Coust. 623.)]
' i\v IT. iiytaii'ouo-ai'. Dep. Ar. $, note 6.
piety, so that he who is sprinkled' by them is
rather polluted 3 by irreligion than redeemed.
So Gentiles also, though the name of God is on
their lips, incur the charge of Atheism +, be-
cause they know not the real and very God, the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So Mani-
chees and Phrygians s, and the disciples of the
Samosatene, though using the Names, never-
theless are heretics, and the Arians follow in
the same course, though they read the words of
Scripture, and use the Names, yet they too
mock those who receive the rite from them,
being more irreligious than the other heresies,
and advancing beyond them, and making them
seem innocent by their own recklessness of
speech. For these other heresies lie against
the truth in some certain respect, either erring
concerning the Lord's Body, as if He did not
take flesh of Mary, or as if He has not died
at all, nor become man, but only appeared,
and was not truly, and seemed to have a body
when He had not, and seemed to have the
shape of man, as visions in a dream ; but the
Arians are without disguise irreligious against
the Father Himself. For hearing from the
Scriptures that His Godhead is represented in
the Son as in an image, they blaspheme, say-
ing, that it is a creature, and everywhere con-
cerning that Image, they carry about ^ with
them the phrase, ' He was not,' as mud in
a wallet i, and spit it forth as serpents ^ their
venom. Then, whereas their doctrine is
nauseous to all men, forthwith, as a support
against its fall, they prop up the heresy with
human 9 patronage, that the sun pie, at the sight
or even by the fear may overlook the mischief
of their perversity. Right indeed is it to pity
their dupes ; well is it to weep over them, for
that they sacrifice their own interest for that
immediate phantasy which pleasures furnish,
and forfeit their future hope. In thinking to be
baptized into the name of one who exists not,
they will receive nothing ; and ranking them-
selves with a creature, from the creation they
will have no help, and believing in one unlike '°
and foreign to the Father in essence, to the
2 pavTt^oixevov, Bingh. Antiqu. xi. ii. § 5. 3 Cf. Cyprian,
£■/. 76 fin. (ed. Ben.) and Ep.-jx cir. init.Optatus ad Par men. i. 12.
4 aOeoTijrog. vid. sitpr. de Deer, i, note i. Or. i. 4, note i.
'Atheist' or rather 'godless' was the title given by pagans to
those who denied, and by the Fathers to those who professed,
polytheism. Thus Julian says that Christians preferred 'atheism
to godliness.' vid. Suicer Thes. in voc. 5 Montanists.
* 7rcpi</)e'povcrt, § 34. n. 5. 7 Instead of provisions.
8 Cf Ef>. jKg. ip. Hist. Ar. 66. and so Arians are dogs (with
allusion to 2 Pet. ii. 22.), de Deer. 4. Hist. Ar. 29. lions. Hist.
Ar. II. wolves, Ap. c. Arian. 49. hares, de Fug, 10. chame-
leons, de Deer. init. hydras, Orat iii. 58 fin. eels, Ep. /Eg.
7 fin. cuttlefish, Orat. iii. 59. gnats, de Deer. 14. init. Orat. iii. 59.
init. beetles, Orat. iii. fin. leeches. Hist. Ar. 65 init. de Fug. 4.
[swine, Or. ii. i.] In many of these instances the allusion is to Scrip-
ture. On names given to heretics in general, vid. the Alphabeuini
be^ti-ilitatis hereticae ex Patrum Symbolis, in the Calvinismus
bestiarum religio attributed to Raynaudus and printed in the
Apopompseus of his works. Vid. on the principle of such applica-
tions infr. Orat. iii. 18. 9 Orat. i. 9. 'o Orat. iii. 4. note.
B b 2
372
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
Father they will not be joined, not having His
own Son by nature, who is from Him, who is
in the Father, and in whom the Father is, as
He Himself has said ; but being led astray by
them, the wretched men henceforth remain
destitute and stripped of the Godhead. For
this phantasy of earthly goods will not follow
them upon their death ; nor when they see the
Lord whom they have denied, sitting on His
Father's throne, and judging quick and dead,
will they be able to call to their help any one
of those who have now deceived them ; for
they shall see them also at the judgment-seat,
repenting for their deeds of sin and irreligion.
CHAPTER XIX.
Texts Explained ; Sixthly, Proverbs
viii. 22.
Proverbs are of a figurative nature, and must be inter-
preted as such. We must interpret them, and in
particular this passage, by the Regula Fidei. ' He
created me ' not equivalent to ' I am a creature. '
"Wisdom a creature so far forth as Its human body.
Again, if He is a creature, it is as 'a beginning of
ways,' an office which, though not an attribute, is
a consequence, of a higher and divine nature. And
it is ' for the works,' which implied the works existed,
and therefore much more He, before He was created.
Also ' the Lord ' not the Father * created * Him,
which implies the creation was that of a servant.
44. We have gone through thus much before
the passage in the Proverbs, resisting the in-
sensate fables which their hearts have in-
vented, that they may know that the Son of
God ought not to be called a creature, and
may learn lightly to read what admits in truth
of a right ^ explanation. For it is written,
'The Lord created me a beginning of His
ways, for His works ^ ;' since, however, these
are proverbs, and it is expressed in the way of
proverbs, we must not expound them nakedly
in their first sense, but we must inquire into
the person, and thus religiously put the sense
on it. For what is said in proverbs, is not
said plainly, but is put forth latently 3, as the
Lord Himself has taught us in the Gospel
according to John, saying, ' These things have
I spoken unto you in proverbs, but the time
Cometh when I shall no more speak unto you
in proverbs, but openly 4.' Therefore it is
necessary to unfold the senses of what is
said, and to seek it as something hidden,
and not nakedly to expound as if the mean-
ing were spoken 'plainly,' lest by a false
interpretation we wander from the truth.
If then what is written be about Angel, or
any other of things originate, as concerning
one of us who are works, let it be said,
' created me ;' but if it be the Wisdom of God,
in whom all things originate have been framed,
that speaks concerning Itself, what ought we
to understand but that ' He created ' means
nothing contrary to * He begat ? ' Nor, as
forgetting that It is Creator and Framer, or
ignorant of the difference between the Creator
and the creatures, does It number Itself among
the creatures ; but It signifies a certain sense,
as in proverbs, not 'plainly,' but latent ; which
It inspired the saints to use in prophecy,
while soon after It doth Itself give the mean-
ing of ' He created ' in other but parallel
expressions, saying, 'Wisdom made herself
a house ^.' Now it is plain that our body
is Wisdom's house ?, which It took on Itself to
become man ; hence consistently does John
say, 'The Word was made flesh 8;' and by
Solomon Wisdom says of Itself with cautious
exactness 9, not ' I am a creature,' but only
' The Lord created me a beginning of His
ways for His works'",' yet not 'created
me jthat I might have being,' nor ' because I
have a creature's beginning and origin.'
45. For in this passage, not as signifying
the Essence of His Godhead, nor His own
everlasting and genuine generation from the
Father, has the Word spoken by Solomon, but
on the other hand His manhood and Economy
towards us. And, as I said before. He has
not said ' I am a creature,' or ' I became a
creature,' but only ' He created ^' For the
creatures, having a created essence, are
' KoAbis dvaytvcooDcetJ'. . . . hpQy)V ixov Trjf SiafOiav, i.e. the text
admits of an interpretation consistent with the analogy of faith,
and so fteT' euo-«/3ei'as just below, vid. § i. n. 13. Such phrases are
frequent in Athan.
2 Prov. viii. 22. Athanasius follows the Sept. rendering of the
Hebrew Qana by ejcTitre. The Hebrew sense is appealed to by
Eusebius, Eccles. Theol. iii. 2, 3. S. Epiphanius, Har. 6g. 25.
and S. Jerome in Isai. 26. 13. Cf. Bas. c. Enn. ii. 20, and Greg.
Nyss. c. E-IC71. 1, p. 34.
3 This passage ot Athan. has been used by many later fathers.
4 John xvi. 25.
5 Here, as in so many other places, he is explaining what is
obscure or latent in Scripture by means of the Regula Fidei. Cf.
Vincentius, Commonit. 2. Vid. especially the first sentence of the
following paragraph, rt Sei voilv k.t.K. vid. su/r. note i.
6 Prov. ix. I. . „ . . ,
7 Ut intra intemerata viscera aedificante sibi Sapientia domura,
Verbum caro fieret. Leon. E^- 31, 2. Didym. de Trin. iii. 3.
p. 337. (ed. 1769.) August. Civ. D. xvii. 20. Cyril in Joann. p. 384,
5. Max. Dial. iii. p. 1029. (ap. Theodor. ed. Schutz.) vid. suj>r.
Or. i. II, note 8. Hence S. Clement. Alex. 6 Aoyos kavtov yei/j/^.
Strom. V. 3. 8 John i. 14. 9 § 12, n. 4.
10 The passage is in like manner interpreted of our Lords
human nature by Epiph. Har. 69, 20—25. Basil. Ep. viii. 8.
Naz. Oral. 30, 2. Nyss. contr. Eunom. i. p. 34. et al. Cynj.
Thesaur. p. 154. Hilar, de Trin. xii. 36 — 49. Ambros. de Fid. i.
15. August, de Fid. et Symb. 6. , . ~, t j
1 He seems here to say that it is both true that The Lord
created,' and yet that the Son was not created. Creatures alone
are created, and He was not a creature. Rather something belong-
in'' or relating to Him, something short of His substance or nature,
was created. However, it is a question in controversy whether
even His Manhood can be called a creature, though many of the
Fathers (including Athan. in several places) seem so to call it.
On the whole it would appear, (i.) that if ' creature,' like ' Son,'
be 3. personal t^rra, He is not a creature ; but if it be a word of
nature. He is a creature ; (2.) that our Lord is a creature in
respect to the flesh (vid. in/r. 47) ; (3.) that since the flesh is
infinitely beneath His divinity, it is neither natural nor safe to call
Him a creature (cf. Thom. Aq. Sum. Th. iii. xvi. 8, 'non dici-
mus, quod .(Ethiops est albus, sed quod est albus secundum dentes')
and (4.) that, if the flesh is worshipped, still it is worshipped as
in the Person of the Son, not by a separate act of worship. Cf.
infr. Letter da. ad Adelph. 3. Epiph. has imitated this passage,
Ancor. 51. introducing the illustration of a king and his robe,,&c.
DISCOURSE II.
373
originate, and are said to be created, and of
course the creature is created : but this mere
term ' He created ' does not necessarily signify
the essence or the generation, but indicates
something else as coming to pass in Him of
whom it speaks, and not simply that He who
is said to be created, is at once in His Nature
and Essence a creature ^ And this differ-
ence divine Scripture recognises, saying con-
cerning the creatures, 'The earth is full of
Thy creation,' and ' the creation itself groaneth
together and travaileth together 3 ;' and in the
Apocalypse it says, ' And the third part of
the creatures in the sea died which had life ;'
as also Paul says, 'Every creature of God is
good, and nothing is to be refused if it be
received with thanksgiving '^;' and in the book
of Wisdom it is written, ' Having ordained
man through Thy wisdom, that he should have
dominion over the creatures which Thou hast
made s.' And these, being creatures, are also
said to be created, as we may further hear
from the Lord, who says, ' He who created
them, made them male and female^;' and
from Moses in the Song, who writes, ' Ask now
of the days that are past, which were before
thee since the day that God created man upon
the earth, and from the one side of heaven
unto the other?.' And Paul in Colossians,
' Who is the Image of the Invisible God,
the Firstborn of every creature, for in Him
were all things created that are in heaven,
and that are on earth, visible and invisi-
ble, whether they be thrones, or domin-
ions, or principalities, or powers ; all things
were created through Him, and tor Him, and
He is before all ^.'
' TO \ey6fJievov KTi^ecrBai rrj <f)v<Tei koX rfj ovirCa KTia/na. also
infr. 60. Without meaning that the respective terms are synony-
mous, is it not plain that in a later phraseology this would have
been, ' not simply that He is in His Person a creature,' or ' that
His Person is created?" Athan.'s use of the phrase ov(rCa tov
Xoyov has already been noticed, s!ipr. i. 45, and passages from this
Oration are given in another connexion, supr. p. 70, note 15.
The terra is synonymous with the Divine Nature as existing
in the Person of the Word. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) b.]
In the passage in the text the ovaia of the Word is contrasted
to the ovaia ot creatures ; and it is observable that it is implied
that our Lord has not taken on Him a created ovaCa.. ' He
said not, Athan. remarks, 'I became a creature, for the crea-
tures have a created essence ; ' he adds that ' He created ' sig-
nifies, noi essence, but something taking place in Him ir^pl
exetfoi', i.e. some adjunct or accident (e.g. notes on t/e Decy. 22),
or as he says sttpr. § 8, envelopment or dress. And in/r. § 51,
he contrasts the oiKTia and the avBpiijnvov of the Word ; as in
Orat. i. 41. ovaia. and r\ avSpioTroTrjs ; and ^lio-is and aap^, iii. 34.
init. and Adyos and trdp^, 38. init. And He speaks of the Son
' taking on Him the econotuy,' iu/r. 76, and of the UTrdcrTao-ts tov
\6yov being one with 6 avdpunros, iv. 25, c. It is observed, § 8,
note, how this line of teaching might be wrested to the purposes of
the ApoUinarian and Eutychian heresies ; and, considering Athan.'s
most emphatic protests against their errors in his later works, as
well as his strong statements in Orat. iii. there is ho hazard in this
admission. His ordinary use of avdpunros for the manhood might
quite as plausibly be perverted on the other hand into a defence of
Nestorianism. Vid. also the Ed. Ben. on S. Hilary, prsf. p. xliii.
who uses fiatura absolutely for our Lord's Divinity, as contrasted
to the dispensatio, and divides His titles into naturalia and
assuinpta. 3 Ps. civ. 24. LXX. ; Rom. viii. 22.
■* Rev. viii. 9 ; i Tim. iv. 4. 5 Wisd. ix. 2,
6 Matt. xix. 4. (6 KTto-as). 7 Deut. iv. 32.
3 Col. i. 15 — 17.
46. That to be called creatures, then, and
to be created belongs to things which have by
nature a created essence, these passages are
sufificient to remind us, though Scripture is full
of the hke ; on the other hand that the single
word 'He created' does not simply denote
the essence and mode of generation, David
shews in the Psalm, ' This shall be written for
another generation, and the people that is
created shall praise the Lord ^ ;' and again,
' Create in me a clean heart, O God ^ ;' and
Paul in Ephesians says, ' Having abolished
the law of commandments contained in ordin-
ances, for to create in Himself of two one
new man 3- and again, ' Put ye on the new-
man, which after God is created in righteous-
ness and true holiness 1' For neither David
spoke of any people created in essence,
nor prayed to have another heart than that
he had, but meant renovation according to
God and renewal ; nor did Paul signify two
persons created in essence in the Lord, nor
again did he counsel us to put on any other
man ; but he called the life according to virtue
the 'man after God,' and by the 'created 'in
Christ he meant the two people who are re-
newed in Him. Such too is the language of
the book of Jeremiah ; ' The Lord created
a new salvation for a planting, in which sal-
vation men shall walk to and froS;' and in
thus speaking, he does not mean any essence
of a creature, but prophesies of the renewal of
salvation among men, which has taken place
in Christ for us. Such then being the differ-
ence between 'the creatures' and the sinsjle
word ' He created,' if you find anywhere in
divine Scripture the Lord called ' creature,'
produce it and fight ; but if it is nowhere
written that He is a creature, only He Him-
self says about Himself in the Proverbs,
' The Lord created me,' shame upon you,
both on the ground of the distinction afore-
said and for that the diction is like that of
proverbs ; and accordingly let ' He created'
be understood, not of His being a creature,
but of that human nature which became His,
for to this belongs creation. Indeed is it not
evidently unfair in you, when David and Paul
say ' He created,' then indeed not to under-
stand it of the essence and the generation,
but the renewal ; yet, when the Lord says ' He
created ' to number His essence with the
creatures? and again when Scripture says,
' Wisdom built her an house, she set it
upon seven pillars ^,' to understand ' house '
I Ps. cii. i8. LXX. 2 Ps. li. 12. 3 Eph. ii. 15.
4 Eph. iv. 22 ; vid. Cyr. Thes. p. 156.
5 Jer. xxxi. 22. vid. also supr. p. 85, where he notices that
this is the version of the Septuagint, Aquila's being ' The Lord
created a new thing in woman.' Athan. has preserved Aquila's
version in three other places, in Psalm xxx. 12. lix. 5. Ixv. i8.
6 Pro v. ix. I.
374
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
allegorlcally, but to take *He created' as
it stands, and to fasten on it the idea of
creature ? and neither His being Framer of all
has had any weight with you, nor have you
feared His being the sole and proper Offspring
of the Father, but recklessly, as if you had
enlisted against Him, do ye fight; and think
less of Him than of men.
47. For the very passage proves that it is
only an invention of your own to call the Lord
creature For the Lord, knowing His own
Essence to be the Only-begotten Wisdom
and Offspring of the Father, and other than
things originate and natural creatures, says
in love to man, 'The Lord created me a
beginning of His ways,' as if to say, 'My
Father hath prepared for Me a body, and has
created Me for men in behalf of their salva-
tion.' For, as when John says, ' The Word
was made flesh', we do not conceive the whole
Word Himself to be flesh 2, but to have put on
flesh and become man, and on hearing, 'Christ
hath become a curse for us,' and ' He hath
made Him sin for us who knew no sin 3,' we
do not simply conceive this, that whole Christ
has become curse and sin,, but that He has
taken on Him the curse which lay against
us (as the Apostle has said, ' Has redeemed
us from the curse,' and ' has carried,' as Isaiah
has said, ' our sins,' and as Peter has written,
' has borne them in the body on the wood 4) ;
so, if it is said in the Proverbs 'He created,'
we must not conceive that the whole Word
is in nature a creature, but that He put on the
created bodys and that God created Him for
our sakes, preparing for Him the created body,
as it is written, for us, that in Him we might
be capable of being renewed and deified.
What then deceived you, O senseless, to
call the Creator a creature? or whence did
you purchase for you this new thought, to
parade it^? For the Proverbs say 'He
created,' but they call not the Son crea-
ture, but Offspring; and, according to the
distinction in Scripture aforesaid of ' He cre-
ated' and ' creature,' they acknowledge, what is
' John i. 14. 2 § lo. n. 6. 3 Gal. iii. 13 ; a Cor. v. 21.
4 Gal. iii. 13 ; Is. Hii. 4 ; i Pet. ii. 24.
S Here he says that, though our Lord's flesh is created or He is
created as to the flesh, it is not right to call Him a creature. This
is very much what S. Thomas says, as referred to in § 45, note i,
in the words of the Schools, that ^thiops, albus secundum denies,
non est albus. But why may not our Lord be so called upon the
principle of the comviutiicatio Idiomatian (infr. note on iii. 31.)
as He is said to be born of a Virgin, to have suffered, &c.f The
reason is this: — birth, passion, &c., confessedly belong to His
human nature, without adding 'according to the flesh;' but
' creature' not implying humanity, might appear a simple attribute
of His Person, if used without limitation. Thus, as S. Thomas
adds, though we may not absolutely say ./Ethiops est albus, we
may say 'crispus est,' or in like manner, 'calvus est.' Since
crispus, or calvus, can but refer to the hair. Still more does this
remark apply in the case of 'Sonship,' which is a personal attribute
altogether ; as is proved, says Petav. de lucarn. vii. 6 fin. by the
instance of Adam, who was in all respects a man like Seth, yet not
a son. Accordingly, we may not call our Lord, even according to
the raanhood, an adopted Son. 6 jro/an-eiieTe, infr. 82.
by nature proper to the Son, that He is the
Only-begotten Wisdom and Framer of the
creatures, and when they say ' He created,*
they say it not in respect of His Essence,
but signify that He was becoming a beginning
of many ways ; so that ' He created ' is in
contrast to ' Offspring,' and His being called
the ' Beginning of ways ^ ' to His being the
Onl3'-begotten Word.
48. For if He is Offspring, how call ye
Him creature? for no one says that He begets
what He creates, nor calls His proper off-
spring creatures ; and again, if He is Only-
begotten, how becomes He ' beginning of the.
ways ? ' for of necessity, if He was created a
beginning of all things. He is no longer alone,
as having those who came into being after Him.
For Reuben, when he became a beginning of
the children', was not only-begotten, but in
time indeed first, but in nature and relationship
one among those who came after him. There-
fore if the Word also is 'a beginning of the
ways,' He must be such as the ways are, and
the ways must be such as the Word, though
in point of time He be created first of them.
For the beginning or initiative of a city is such
as the other parts of the city are, and the
members too being joined to it, make the city
whole and one, as the many members of one
body; nor does one part of it make, and
another come to be, and is subject to the
former, but all the city equally has its govern-
ment and constitution from its maker. If
then the Lord is in such sense created as-
a ' beginning ' of all things, it would follow
that He and all other things together make
up the unity of the creation, and He neither
differs from all others, though He become
the ' beginning ' of all, nor is He Lord of
them, though older in point of time; but He
has the same manner of framing and the same
Lord as the rest. Nay, if He be a creature,
as you hold, how can He be created sole and
first at all, so as to be beginning of all ? when
it is plain from what has been said, that among
the creatures not any is of a constant^ nature
and of prior formation, but each has its origin-
ation with all the rest, however it may excel
others in glory. For as to the separate stars
or the great lights, not this appeared first,
and that second, but in one day and by the
same command, thej were all called into
being. And such was the original formation
of the quadrupeds, and of birds, and fishes,
and cattle, and plants ; thus too has the race
7 apxw 65(tfv' and so in Justin's Tryph. 61. The Bened. Ed.
in loc. refers to a similar application of the word to our Lord ia
Tatian contr. Gent. 5. Athenag. Ap. 10. Iren. /iter. iv. 20. n. 3.
Origen. in Joan. torn. i. 39. Tertull. adv. Prax. 6. and Ambros.
de Fid. iii. 7. ' opX'I rdKvoiv, Gen. xlix. 3.
2 Cf. p. IS7, note 7.
DISCOURSE II.
375
made after God's Image come to be, namely
men ; for though Adam only was formed out
of earth, yet in him was involved the succes-
sion of the whole race.
49. And from the visible creation, we clearly
discern that His invisible things also, 'being
perceived by the things that are made 3/ are
not independent of each other; for it was
not first one and then another, but all at once
were constituted after their kind. For the
Apostle did not number individually, so as
to say 'whether Angel, or Throne, or Do-
minion, or Authority,' but he mentions together
all according to their kind, 'whether Angels,
or Archangels, or Principalities* : ' for in this
way is the origination of the creatures. If
then, as I have said, the Word were creature.
He must have been brought into being, not
first of them, but with all the other Powers,
though in glory He excel the rest ever so
much. For so we find it to be in their case,
that at once they came to be, with neither
first nor second, and they differ from each
other in glory, some on the right of the throne,
some all around, and some on the left, but one
and all praising and standing in service before
the Lords. Therefore if the Word be creature.
He would not be first or beginning of the rest ;
yet if He be before all, as indeed He is, and
is Himself alone First and Son, it does not
follow that He is beginning of all things as
to His Essence^, for what is the beginning of
all is in the number of all. And if He is not
such a beginning, then neither is He a creature,
but it is very plain that He differs in essence
and nature from the creatures, and is other
than they, and is Likeness and Image of the
sole and true God, being Himself sole also.
Hence He is not classed with creatures in
Scripture, but David rebukes those who dare
even to think of Him as such, saying, 'Who
among the gods is like unto the Lord??' and
' Who is like unto the Lord among the sons of
God?' and Baruch, 'This is our God, and
another shall not be reckoned with Him^.'
For the One creates, and the rest are created ;
and the One is the own Word and Wisdom
of the Father's Essence, and through this
Word things which came to be, which before
existed not, were made.
3 Rom. i. 20. 4 Vid. Co!, i. 16. S i. 61 ; ii. 27.
* ije says that, though none could be 'a beginning' of creation,
who was a creature, yet still that such a title belongs not to His
essence. It is the name 01' an office which the Eternal Word alone
can fill. His Divine Sonship is both superior and necessary to that
office of a ' Beginning.' Hence it is both true (as he says) that ' if
the Word is a creature. He is not a beginning ;' and yet that that
'beginning' is 'in the number of the creatures.' Though He
becomes the 'beginning,' He is not 'a beginning as to His
essence,' vid. svpr. i. 49, and I'li/r. § 60. whtre he says, ' He who
is ie/ore all, cannot be a beghniing of all, but is other than all,'
which implies that the beginning of all is not other than all. vid.
§ 8, note 4, on the Priesthood, and § 16, n. 7.
7 Ps. Ixxxix. 6. ^ Bar. iii. 35.
50. Your famous assertion then, that the
Son is a creature, is not true, but is your
fantasy only; nay Solomon convicts you
of having many times slandered him. For
he has not called Him creature, but God's
Offspring and Wisdom, saying, « God in Wis-
dom established the earth,' and 'Wisdom
built her an house ^' And the very pas-
sage in question proves your irreligious
spirit; for it is written, 'The Lord created
me a beginning of His ways for His works.'
Therefore if He is before all things, yet says
' He created me ' (not ' that I might make the
works,' but) 'for the works,' unless 'He cre-
ated ' relates to something later than Himself,
He will seem later than the works, finding
them on His creation already in existence
before Him, for the sake of which He is also
brought into being. And if so, how is He
before all things notwithstanding? and how
were all things made through Him and
consist in Him ? for behold, you say that the
works consisted before Him, for which He is
created and sent. But it is not so ; perish the
thought ! false is the supposition of the here-
tics. For the Word of God is not creature
but Creator; and says in the manner of pro-
verbs, ' He created me ' when He put on
created flesh. And something besides may
be understood from the passage itself; for,
being Son and having God for His Father,
for He is His proper Offspring, yet here
He names the Father Lord ; not that He was
servant, but because He took the servant's form.
For it became Him, on the one hand being
the Word from the Father, to call God Father:
for this is proper to son towards father; on
the other, having come to finish the work, and
taken a servant's form, to name the Father
Lord. And this difference He Himself has
taught by an apt distinction, saying in the
Gospels, ' I thank Thee, O Father,' and then,
' Lord of heaven and earth^.' For He calls
God His Father, but of the creatures He
names Him Lord; as shewing clearly from
these words, that, when He put on the crea-
tures, then it was He called the Father Lord.
For in the prayer of David the Holy Spirit
marks the same distinction, saying in the
Psalms, 'Give Thy strength unto Thy Child,
and help the Son of Thine handmaid*.' For
the natural and true child of God is one, and
the sons of the handmaid, that is, of the
nature of things originate, are other. Where-
fore the One, as Son, has the Father's might ;
but the rest are in need of salvation.
51. (But if, because He was called child,
I Vid. Prov. iii. 19 ; i_x. i.
3 TO KTiaTOV, i.e. a-uifia, § 47.
2 Malt. xi. 25.
4 Ps Ixxxvi. 16.
376
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
they idly talk, let them know that both
Isaac was named x\braham's child, and the son
of the Shunamite was called young child.)
Reasonably then, we being servants, when He
became as we, He too calls the Father Lord, as
we do ; and this He has so done from love to
man, that we too, being servants by nature, and
receiving the Spirit of the Son, might have con-
fidence to call Him by grace Father, who is by
nature our Lord. But as we, in calling the
Lord Father, do not deny our servitude by
nature (for we are His works, and it is ' He that
hath made us, and not we ourselves^ '), so when
the Son, on taking the servant's form, says,
*The Lord created me a beginning of His
ways,' let them not deny the eternity of His
Godhead, and that 'in the beginning was the
Word,' and ' all things were made by Him,' and
' in Him all things were created''.'
CHAPTER XX.
Texts Explained ; Sixthly, Proverbs
viii. 22 Continued,
Our Lord is said to be created ' for the works,* i.e. with
a particular purpose, which no mere creatures are
ever said to be. Parallel of Isai. xlix. 5, &c. When
His manhood is spoken of, a reason for it is added ;
not so when His Divine Nature ; Texts in proof.
51 (continued). For the passage in the Pro-
verbs, as I have said before, signifies, not the
Essence, but the manhood of the Word ; for
if He says that He was created ' for the works,'
He shews His intention of signifying, not His
Essence, but the Economy which took place
'for His works,' which comes second to being.
For things which are in formation and creation
are made specially that they may be and exists,
and next they have to do whatever the Word
bids them, as may be seen in the case of all
things. For Adam was created, not that He
might work, but that first he might be man ; for
it was after this that he received the command
to work. And Noah was created, not because
of the ark, but that first he might exist and be
a man ; for after this he received commandment
to prepare the ark. And the like will be found
in every case on inquiring into it; — thus the
great Moses first was made a man, and next was
entrusted with the government of the people.
Therefore here too we must suppose the hke ;
for thou seest, that the Word is not created
into existence, but, ' In the beginning was the
Word,' and He is afterwards sent 'for the
works ' and the Economy towards them. For
1 Ps. c. 3. _ 2 John i. I, 3 ; Col. i. 16.
3 He says m effect, Before the generation of the works, they
were not ; but Christ on the contrary ' (not, ' was before His
generation, as Bull's hypothesis, S7ipr. Exc. B. wonld require,
but) IS from everlasting," vid. § 57, note.
before the works were made, the Son was ever,
nor was there yet need that He should be
created ; but when the works were created and
need arose afterwards of the Economy for their
restoration, then it was that the Word took upon
Himself this condescension and assimilation to
the works; which He has shewn us by the
word ' He created.' And through the Prophet
Isaiah willing to signify the like, He says again :
' And now thus saith the Lord, who formed me
from the womb to be His servant, to gather to-
gether Jacob unto Flim and Israel, I shall be
brought together and be glorified before the
Lord 4.'
52. See here too. He is formed, not into
existence, but in order to gather together
the tribes, which were in existence before He
was formed. For as in the former passage
stands ' He created,' so in this ' He formed;'
and as there 'for the works,' so here ' to gather
together;' so that in every point of view it
appears that ' He created ' and ' He formed '
are said after ' the Word was.' For as before
His forming the tribes existed, for whose sake
He was formed, so does it appear that the
works exist, for which He was created. And
when 'in the beginning was the Word,' not yet
were the works, as I have said before ; but
when the works were made and the need
required, then ' He created ' was said ; and as
if some son, when the servants were lost, and
in the hands of the enemy by their own care-
lessness, and need was urgent, were sent by his
father to succour and recover them, and on
setting out were to put over him the like dress''
with them, and should fashion himself as they,
lest the capturers, recognising him ^ as the
master, should take to flight and prevent his
descending to those who were hidden under the
earth by them ; and then were any one to
inquire of him, why he did so, were to make
answer, ' My Father thus formed and prepared
me for his works,' while in thus speaking, he
neither implies that he is a servant nor one of
the works, nor speaks of the beginning of His
origination, but of the subsequent charge given
him over the works, — in the same way the Lord
also, having put over Him our flesh, and ' being
found in fashion as a man,' if He were ques-
tioned by those who saw Him thus and mar-
velled, would say, ' The Lord created Me the
beginning of His ways for His works,' and ' He
formed Me to gather together Israel.' This
again the Spirit 3 foretells in the Psalms, saying,
' Thou didst set Him over the works of Thine
hands 4; ' which elsewhere the Lord signified of
Himself, ' I am set as King by Him upon His
4 Isai. xlix. s. LXX. i § 7
2 Vid. the well-known passage in S. Ignatius, ad Efh. ig [and
Lightfoot's note]. 3 Supr. 20. 4 Heb. ii. 7.
DISCOURSE II.
377
holy hill of Sion s.' And as, when He shone ^
in the body upon Sion, He had not His begin-
ning of existence or of reign, but being God's
Word and everlasting King, He vouchsafed that
His kingdom should shine in a human way in
Sion, that redeeming them and us from the sin
which reigned in them. He might bring them
under His Father's Kingdom, so, on being set
' for the works,' He is not set for things which
did not yet exist, but for such as already were
and needed restoration.
53. ' He created ' then and ' He formed ' and
'He set,' having the same meaning, do not
denote the beginning of His being, or of His
essence as created, but His beneficent reno-
vation which came to pass for us. Accordingly,
though He thus speaks, yet He taught also
that He Himself existed before this, when He
said, 'Before x\braham came to be, I am^;' and
' when He prepared the heavens, I was present
with Him ; ' and ' I was with Him disposing
things^' And as He Himself was before Abra-
ham came to be, and Israel had come into being
after Abraham, and plainly He exists first and
is formed afterwards, and His forming signifies
not His beginning of being but His taking
manhood, wherein also He collects together
the tribes of Israel ; so, as ' being always with
the Father,' He Himself is Framer of the
creation, and His works are evidently later than
Himself, and ' He created ' signifies, not His
beginning of being, but the Economy which
took place for the works, which He effected in
the flesh. For it became Him, being other
than the works, nay rather their Framer, to
take upon Himself their renovations, that,
whereas He is created for us, all things may be
now created in Him. For when He said ' He
created,' He forthwith added the reason,
naming 'the works,' that His creation for the
works might signify His becoming man for
their renovation. And this is usual with divine
Scripture * ; for when it signifies the fleshly
origination of the Son, it adds also the cause s
for which He became man ; but when he speaks
or His servants declare anything of His God-
head, all is said in simple diction, and with an
absolute sense, and without reason being
added. For He is the Father's Radiance ;
and as the Father is, but not for any reason,
neither must we seek the reason of that
Radiance. Thus it is written, ' In the begin-
ning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God ^ ; ' and the
wherefore it assigns not 7 ; but when ' the
5 Ps. ii. 6. LXX. 6 e7re'Aam//e, vid. of the Holy Spirit,
Scrap, i. 20, c. ' John viii. 58.
» Prov. viii. 27, 30, LXX. 3 p. 335, note i.
4 Iffos 6(7x1 TJ7 6eia ypa<l>jj' and so Orat. iii. 18, b. And ttJs
ypa^ijs e^os exovcnjs, ibid. 30, d. S Vid. Naz. Orat. 30. 2.
6 John i. I. 7 Naz. ibid.
Word was made flesh ^,' then it adds the
reason why, saying, 'And dwelt among us.'
And again the Apostle saying, ' Who being in
the form of God,' has not introduced the reason,
till ' He took on Him the form of a servant ; '
for then he continues, ' He humbled Himself
unto death, even the death of the cross9;' for
it was for this that He both became flesh and
took the form of a servant
54. And the Lord Himself has spoken many
things in proverbs ; but when giving us notices
about Himself, He has spoken absolutely^; ' I
in the Father and the Father in Me,' and ' I and
the Father are one,' and ' He that hath seen
Me, hath seen the Father,' and 'I am the Light
of the world,' and, 'I am the Truth ^ ; ' not
setting down in every case the reason, nor the
wherefore, lest He should seerri second to those
things for which He was made. For that
reason would needs take precedence of Him,
without which not even He Himself had come
into being. Paul, for instance, 'separated
an Apostle for the Gospel, which the Lord
had promised afore by the Prophets 3,' was
thereby made subordinate to the Gospel, of
which he was made minister, and John, being
chosen to prepare the Lord's way, was made
subordinate to the Lord ; but the Lord, not
being made subordinate to any reason why
He should be Word, save only that He is
the Father's Offspring and Only-begotten Wis-
dom, when He becomes man, then assigns the
reason why He is about to take flesh. For
the need of man preceded His becoming man,
apart from which He had not put on flesh 4.
And what the need was for which He became
map, He Himself thus signifies, ' I came down
from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the
will of Him that sent Me. And this is the
will of Him which hath sent Me, that of all
which He hath given Me, I should lose nothing,
but should raise it up again at the last day.
And this is the will of My Father, that every
one which seeth the Son and believeth on Him
may have everlasting life, and I will raise him
up at the last days.' And again ; ' I am come
a light into the world, that whosoever believeth
on Me, should not abide in darkness^.' And
again he says; 'To this end was I born, and
for this cause came I into the world, that I
should bear witness unto the truth ?.' And
John has written : ' For this was manifested the
Son of God, that He might destroy the works of
the devil ^.'
8 John i. 14. 9 Phil. ii. 6—8. ' Infr. 62.
2 John xiv. 6, 9, 10; x. 30; viii. 12. 3 Rom. i. i, 2.
4 It is the general teaching of the Fathers that our Lord would
not have been incarnate had not man sinned. [But see Prolegg.
ch. iv. § 3, c] Cf. de Incarn. 4. vid. Thomassin. at great length
de Incarn. ii. 5 — 11. also Petav. de Incarn. ii. 17, 7 — 12. Vasquez.
in 3 Thorn. Disp. x. 4 and 5. S John vi. 38 — 40.
6 lb. xii. 46. 7 lb. xviii. 37. 8 i John iii. 8.
378
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
55. To give a witness then, and for our sakes
to undergo death, to raise man up and destroy the
works of the devil ^, the Saviour came, and this
is the reason of His incarnate presence. For
otherwise a resurrection had not been, unless
there had been death ; and how had death been,
unless He had had a mortal body? This the
Apostle, learning from Him, thus sets forth,
' Forasmuch then as the children are partakers
of flesh and blood, He also Himself Uke-
wise took part of the same; that through
death He might bring to nought him that
had the power of death, that is, the devil,
and deliver them who through fear of death
were all their lifetime subject to bondage^.'
And, 'Since by man came death, by man came
also the resurrection of the deads.' And again,
' For what the Law could not do, in that it
was weak through the flesh, God, sending His
own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for
sin, condemned sin in the flesh ; that the
ordinance of the Law might be fulfilled in us,
who walk not after the flesh but after the
Spirit*.' And John says, ' For God sent not
His Son into the world to condemn the world,
but that the world through Him might be
saved s,' And again, the Saviour has spoken in
His own person, ' For judgment am I come
into this world, that they who see not might
see, and that they which see might become
blind ^.' Not for Himself then, but for our
salvation, and to abolish death, and to con-
demn sin, and to give sight to the blind, and to
raise up all from the dead, has He come ; but
if not for Himself, but for us, by consequence
not for Himself but for us is He created. But
if not for Himself is He created, but for us,
then He is not Himself a creature, but, as
having put on our flesh. He uses such language.
And that this is the sense of the Scriptures,
we may learn from the Apostle, who says
in Ephesians, ' Having broken down the
middle wall of partition between us, having
abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the
law of commandments contained in ordin-
ances, to create in Himself of twain one new
* Two ends of our Lord's Incarnation are here mentioned ;
that He might die for us, and that He might renew us. answering
nearly to those specified in Rom. iv. 25. ' who was delivered for
our offences and raised again for our justification.' The general
object of His coming, including both of these, is treated of
in Incarn. esp. §§ 4 — 20. and in the two books against
Apollinaris. Vid. supr. § 8. § 9. Also infr. Orat. iv. 6. And
Theodoret, Eran. iii. p. 196, 7. Vigil. Thaps. conir. Eutych.
1. p. 496. (B._P. ed. 1624.) and S. Leo spt-aks of the whole course of
redemption, i.e. incarnation, atonement, regeneration, justification,
&c., as one sacrament, not drawing the line distinctly between the
several agents, elements, or stages in it, but considering it to lie
in the intercommunion of Christ's and our persons. Serm. 63. 14.
He speaks of His fortifying us against our passions and infirmities,
both Sacramento susceJ>tionis and exemplo. Serm. 65, 2. and of
a duplex remedium cujus aliud in sacrame7ito, aliud in exemplo.
Serm. 67, 5. also 69, 5. The tone of his teaching is throughout
characteristic of the Fathers, and very like that of S. Athanasius.
2 Heb. ii. 14, 15. 3 I Cor. xv. 21. 4 Rom. viii. 3, 4.
5 John iii. 17. 6 lb. ix. 39.
man, so making peace 7.' But if in Him the
twain are created, and these are in His body,
reasonably then, bearing the twain in Him-
self, He is as if Himself created ; for those
who were created in Himself He made one,
and He was in them, as they. And thus,
the two being created in Him, He may say
suitably, 'The Lord created me.' For as by
receiving our infirmities, He is said to be infirm
Himself, though not Himself infirm, for He is
the Power of God, and He became sin for us.
and a curse, though not having sinned Himself,
but because He Himself bare our sins and our
cursQ, so ^, by creating us in Him, let Him say,
'He created me for the works,' though not
Himself a creature.
56. For if, as they hold, the Essence of
the Word being of created nature, therefore
He says, 'The Lord created me,' being a
creature. He was not created for us ; but if
He was not created for us, we are not created
in Him ; and, if not created in Him, we have
Him not in ourselves but externally; as, for
instance, as receiving instruction from Him as
from a teacher ^ And it being so with us, sin
has not lost its reign over the flesh, being in-
herent and not cast out of it. But the Apostle
opposes such a doctrine a little before, when
he says, ' For we are His workmanship, created
in Christ Jesus ^;' and if in Christ we are
created, then it is not He who is created, but
we in Him ; and thus the words ' He created ''
are for our sake. For because of our need,
the Word, though being Creator, endured
words which are used of creatures ; which are
not proper to Him, as being the Word, but are
ours who are created in Him. And as, since
the Father is always, so is His Word, and
always being, always says ' 1 was daily His
delight, rejoicing always before Him 3,' and ' I
am in the Father and the Father in Me*;' so,^
when for our need He became man, con-
sistently does He use language, as ourselves^
'The Lord hath created Me,' that, by His
dwelling in the flesh, sin might perfectly be
expelled from the flesh, and we might have a
free mind s. For what ought He, when made
7 Eph. ii. 14, 15.
8 The word airTo!, 'Himself,' is all along used, where a later
writer would have said 'His Person ;' vid. su^r. § 45, n. 2; still
there is more to be explained in this passage, which, taken in the
letter, would speak a language very difterent from Athan.'s, as
if the infirmities or the created nature of the Word were not more
real than His imputed sinfulness, (vid. on the other hand infr. iii.
31 — 35). But nothing is more common in theology than com-
parisons which are only parallel to a certain point as regards the
matter in hand, especially since many doctrines do not admit of
exact illustrations. Our Lord's real manhood and imputed sinful-
ness were alike adjuncts to His Divine Person, which was of an
Eternal and Infinite Nature ; and therefore His Manhood may be
compared to an Attribute, or to an accident, without meaning
that it really was either. » Note on iii. 19.
2 Eph. ii. 10. 3 Prov. viii. 30. 4 John xiv. 10.
5 eAevSepoc to 0pov>)/oia. vid. also beginning of the paragraph,
where sanctification is contrasted to teaching, vid. also note on ^9,
infr. Contr. A/>oll. i. 20. fin. ibid. ii. 6. also Orat. iii. 33, where vid.
DISCOURSE II.
^79
man, to say ? * In the beginning 1 was
man?' this were neither suitable to Him nor
true ; and as it beseemed not to say this, so
it is natural and proper in the case of man to
say, ' He created ' and * He made ' Him. On
this account then the reason of ' He created '
is added, namely, the need of the works ;
and where the reason is added, surely the
reason rightly explains the lection. Thus
here, when He says ' He created,' He sets
down the cause, 'the works;' on the other
hand, when He signifies absolutely the genera-
tion from the Father, straightway He adds,
' Before all the hills He begets me ^ ;' but He
does not add the ' wherefore,' as in the case of
' He created,' saying, ' for the works,' but ab-
solutely, ' He begets me,' as in the text,
* In the beginning was the Word 7.' For,
though no works had been created, still ' the
Word ' of God ' was,' and ' the Word was God.'
And His becoming man would not have taken
place, had not the need of men become a
cause. The Son then is not a creature.
CHAPTER XXI.
Texts Explained; Sixthly, Proverbs
Viii. 22, CONTINUED.
Our Lord not said in Scripture to be 'created,' or the
works to be ' begotten.' ' In the beginning ' means
in the case of the worlds ' from the beginning. ' Scrip-
ture passages explained. We are made by God first,
begotten nexc ; creatures by nature, sons by grace.
Christ begotten first, made or created afterwards.
Sense of ' First-born of the dead ; ' of ' First-born
among many brethren ; ' of * First-born of all crea-
tion,' contrasted with ' Only-begotten.' Further in-
terpretation of 'beginning of ways,' and 'for the
works.' Why a creature could not redeem ; why
redemption was necessary at all. Texts which, con-
trast the Word and the works.
57. For had He been a creature. He had
not said, * He begets me,' for the creatures
are from without, and are works of the
Maker ; but the Offspring is not from without
nor a work, but from the Father, and proper
to His Essence. Wherefore they are creatures ;
this God's Word and Only-begotten Son. For
instance, Moses did not say of the creation,
' In the beginning He begat,' nor ' In the
beginning was,' but ' In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth'.' Nor did
David say in the Psalm, ' Thy hands have
"begotten me," ' but 'made me and fashioned
note, and 34. vid. for apxrj, Orai. i. 48, note 7. Also vid. infr.
Orai. iii. 56. a. iv. 33, a. Naz. E/>p. nd CUd. i. and 2. (loi, 102.
Ed. Ben.) Nyssen. ad Theoj>h. in Apoll- p. 6y6. Leo, Serm. 26,
2. Serm. 72, 2. vid. Serm. 22, 2. ut corpus regenerati tiat caro
CrucifixL Serm. 63, 6. Heec eft nativitas nova dum homo
nascitur in Deo; in quo hcmine Deus natus est, carne antiqui
seminissuscepta, sine semine antiquo, ut illam novo semine, id est,
spirilualiter, reformaret, exclusis antiquitatis sordibus expiatam.
Tertull. de Cam. Christ. 17. vid. snf>r, i. 51, note 5. and note on
64 iti/r. 65 and 70. and on iii. 34.
* Prov. viii. 25. 7 John i, i. ' Gen. i. i.
me ^,' everywhere applying the word ' made '
to the creatures. But to the Son contrari-
wise ; for he has not said ' I made,' but ' I
begat 3,' and 'He begets me,' and 'My heart
uttered a good Word 4.' And in the in-
stance of the creation, ' In the beginning He
made ;' but in the instance of the Son, ' In the
beginning was the Word s.' And there is this
difference, that the creatures are made upon
the beginning, and have a beginning of exist-
ence connected with an interval; wherefore
also what is said of them, ' In the beginning
He made,' is as much as saying of them,
' From the beginning He made :' — as the Lord,
knowing that which He- had made, taught,
when He silenced the Pharisees, Avith the
words, ' He which made them from the be-
ginning, made them male and female ^ ;' for
from some beginning, when they were not yet,
were originate things brought into being and
created. This too the Hx)ly Spirit has signified
in the Psalms, saying, 'Thou, Lord, at the
beginning hast laid the foundation of the
earth7;' and again, 'O think upon Thy con-
gregation which Thou hast purchased from
the beginning ^ ;' now it is plain that what
takes place at the beginning, has a beginning
of creation, and that from some beginning
God purchased His congregation. And that
'In the beginning He made,' from his saying
'made,' means 'began to make,' Moses himself
shews by saying, after the completion of all
things, ' And God blessed the seventh day and
sanctified it, because that in it He had rested
from all His work which God began to make 9.*
Therefore the creatures began to be made ;
but the Word of God, not having beginning of
being, certainly did not begin to be, nor begin
to come to be, but was ever. And the works
have their beginning in their making, and their
beginning precedes their coming to be ; but
the Word, not being of things which come to
be, rather comes to be Himself the Framer of
those which have a beginning. And the being
of things originate is measured by their be-
coming '°, and from some beginning does God
begin to make themx through the Word, that
it inay be known that they were not before
their origination ; but the Word has His be-
ing, in no other beginning " than the Father,
whom '^ they allow to be without beginning,
so that He too exists without beginning in the
Father, being His Offspring, not His creature.
4 Ps. xlv. I.
7 Ps. cii. 25.
»o Supr. i. 29, n. lo.
a Ps. cxix. 73. 3 Ps. ii. 7,
S John i. I. 6 Matt. xix. 4.
8 Ps. Ixxiv. 2. 9 Gen. ii. 3.
11 apxTJ. vid. Orai. iv. i. ... . ,
12 In this passage ' was from the beginning' is made equivalent
with 'was not before generation,' and both are contrasted with
' without beginning ' or ' eternal ; ' vid. the bearing of this on
Bishop Bull's explanation of the Nicene Anathema, stipr. Exc.
B, where this passage is quoted.
38o
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
58. Thus does divine Scripture recognise
the difference between the Offspring and things
made, and shew that the Offspring is a Son,
not begun from any beginning, but eternal ;
but that the thing made, as an external work
of the Maker, began to come into being.
John therefore delivering divine doctrine ^
about the Son, and knowing the difference of
the phrases, said not, ' In the beginning has be-
come ' or 'been made,' but 'In the beginning
was the Word;' that we might understand
'Offspring' by 'was,' and not account of Him
by intervals, but believe the Son always and
eternally to exist. And with these proofs,
how, O Arians, misunderstanding the passage in
Deuteronomy, did you venture a fresh act of
irreligion = against the Lord, saying that ' He
is a work,' or ' creature,' or indeed 'offspring?'
for offspring and work you take to mean the
same thing ; but here too you shall be shewn
to be as unlearned as you are irreligious.
Your first passage is this, *Is not He thy
Father that bought thee? did He not make
thee and create thee 3? And shortly after
in the same Song he says, ' God that begat
thee thou didst desert, and forgattest God
that nourished thee*.' Now the meaning
conveyed in these passages is very remark-
able ; for he says not first ' He begat,' lest
that term should be taken as indiscriminate
with ' He made,' and these men should have a
pretence for saying, ' Moses tells us indeed
that God said from the beginning, " Let Us
make man s," but he soon after says himself,
' God that begat thee thou didst desert,'
as if the terms were indifferent ; for off-
spring and work are the same. But after
the words 'bought' and 'made,' he has added
last of all 'begat,' that the sentence might
carry its own interpretation ; for in the word
' made ' he accurately denotes what belongs
to men by nature, to be works and things
made; but in the word 'begat' he shews
God's lovingkindness exercised towards men
after He had created them. And since they
have proved ungrateful upon this, thereupon
Moses reproaches them, saying first, ' Do ye
thus requite the Lord ? ' and then adds, * Is not
He thy Father that bought thee? Did He
not make thee and create thee^?' And next
he says, 'They sacrificed unto devils, not to
God, to gods whom they knew not. New
gods and strange came up, whom your fathers
knew not ; the God that begat thee thou didst
desert 7.'
I fleoA.oyMi', vid. § 71, note.
a The technical sense of eiia-ePeia, ao-e'jSeta, pietas, impietas, for
'orthodoxy, heterodoxy," has been noticed S2{pr. p. 150, and
derived from i Tim. iii. 16. The word is contrasted ch. iv. 8.
with the (perhaps Gnostic) 'profane and old-wives fables,' and
with ' bodily exercise.' 3 Deut. xxxii. 6. LXX. 4 Ibid. 18.
5 Gen. i. 36. 6 Deut. xxxii. 6. 7 Ibid. 17.
59. For God not only created them to be
men, but called them to be sons, as having
begotten them. For the term ' begat ' is here
as elsewhere expressive of a Son, as He says
by the Prophet, ' I begat sons and exalted
them ; ' and generally, when Scripture wishes
to signify a son, it does so, not by the term
' created,' but undoubtedly by that of ' begat.'
And this John seems to say, ' He gave to
them power to become children of God, even
to them that believe on His Name ; which
were begotten not of blood, nor of the will
of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of
God^' And here too the cautious distinction^
is well kept up, for first he says 'become,'
because they are not called sons by nature
but by adoption ; then he says ' were begot-
ten,' because they too had received at any
rate the name of son. But the People, as says
the Prophet, 'despised' their Benefactor. But
this is God's kindness to man, that of whom
He is Maker, of them according to grace He
afterwards becomes Father also ; becomes,
that is, when men, His creatures, receive into
their hearts, as the Apostle says, ' the Spirit
of His Son, crying, Abba, Fathers.' And these
are they who, having received the Word, gained
power from Him to become sons of God ; for
they could not become sons, being by nature
creatures, otherwise than by receiving the
Spirit of the natural and true Son. Where-
fore, that this might be, ' The Word became
flesh,' that He might make man capable of
Godhead. This same meaning may be gained
also from the Prophet Malachi, who says,
' Hath not One God created us ? Have we
not all one Father 4?' for first he puts 'cre-
ated,' next ' Father,' to shew, as the other
writers, that from the beginning we were crea-
tures by nature, and God is our Creator
through the Word ; but afterwards we were
made sons, and thenceforward God the Cre-
ator becomes our Father also. Therefore
' Father ' is proper to the Son ; and not ' crea-
ture,' but ' Son' is proper to the Father. Ac-
cordingly this passage also proves, that we
are not sons by nature, but the Son who is
in uss ; and again, that God is not our Father
by nature, but of that Word in us, in whom
and because of whom we ' cry, Abba, Father^.'
And so in like manner, the Father calls them
sons in whomsoever He sees His own Son,
and says, 'I begat;' since begetting is sig-
nificant of a Son, and making is indicative
of the works. And thus it is that we are not
"^ John i. 12, 13. ■ irapaTrjp^o-ecos, ? I2, note.
3 De Deer. 31 tin. 4 Mai. ii. 10.
5 70V kv ■qiJilv vlov, vid. also su^r. 10. circ. fin. 56. init. and rhv
ev avToIs oiKovvTa \6yov. 61. init. Also Orat. i. 50 fin. iii. 23 — 25.
and de Deer. 31 fin. Or. i. 48, note 7, § 56, n. 5. zVj/V. notes on 79.
6 Gal. iv. 6.
DISCOURSE II.
381
begotten first, but made ; for it is written,
'Let Us make man^;' but afterwards, on
receiving the grace of the Spirit, we are said
thenceforth to be begotten also ; just as the
great Moses in his Song with an apposite
meaning says first ' He bought,' and after-
wards ' He begat;' lest, hearing *He begat,'
they might forget their own original nature ;
but that they might know that from the begin-
ning they are creatures, but when according
to grace they are said to be begotten, as sons,
still no less than before are men works accord-
ing to nature.
60. And that creature and offspring are not
the same, but differ from each other in nature
and the signification of the words, the Lord
Himself shews even in the Proverbs. For
having said, 'The Lord created me a be-
ginning of His ways ; ' He has added, ' But
before all the hills He begat me.' If then the
Word were by nature and in His Essence^
a creature, and there were no difference be-
tween offspring and creature, He would not
have added, ' He begat me,' but had been
satisfied with ' He created,' as if that term
implied 'He begat;' but, as it is, after
saying, ' He created me a beginning of His
ways for His works,' He has added, not
simply 'begat me,' but with the connection
of the conjunction 'But,' as guarding thereby
the term ' created,' when he says, ' But before
all the hills He begat me.' For 'begat me'
succeeding in such close connection to 'created
me,' makes the meaning one, and shews that
' created ' is said with an object^, but that
* begat me ' is prior to ' created me.' For as,
if He had said the reverse, ' The Lord begat
me,' and went on, ' But before the hills He
created me,' ' created ' would certainly pre-
cede 'begat,' so having said first 'created,'
and then added ' But before all the hills He
begat me,' He necessarily shews that ' begat '
preceded ' created.' For in saying, ' Before
all He begat me,' He intimates that He is
other than all things ; it having been shewn
to be true 3 in an earlier part of this book,
that no one creature was made before another,
but all things originate subsisted at once to-
gether upon one and the same command!
Therefore neither do the words which follow
'created,' also follow 'begat me;' but in the
case of ' created ' is added 'beginning of ways,'
but of ' begat me,' He says not, 'He begat me
as a beginning,' but 'before all He begat me.'
But He who is before all is not a beginning of
all, but is other than alls; but if other than all
(in which 'all' the beginning of all is included),
it follows that He is other than the creatures ;
7 Gen. i. 26.
3 PP- 367, 374-
I § 45, note 2.
4 §48.
» Ch. 20.
5 § 6, note 49.
and it becomes a clear point, that the Word,
being other than all things and before all,
afterwards is created ' a beginning of the ways
for works,' because He became man, that,
as the Apostle has said. He who is the ' Be-
ginning ' and ' First-born from the dead, in
all things might have the preeminence^.'
61. Such then being the difference between
' created ' and ' begat me,' and between ' be-
ginning of ways ' and ' before all,' God, being
first Creator, next, as has been said, becomes
Father of men, because of His Word dwelling
in them. But in the case of the Word the
reverse ; for God, being His Father by nature,
becomes afterwards both His Creator and
Maker, when the Word puts on that flesh
which was created and made, and becomes
man. For, as men, receiving the Spirit of the
Son, become children through Him, so the
Word of God, when He Himself puts on the
flesh of man, then is said both to be created
and to have been made. If then we are by-
nature sons, then is He by nature creature
and work ; but if we become sons by adop-
tion and grace, then has the Word also,
when in grace towards us He became man,
said, 'The Lord created me.' And in the
next place, when He put on a created
nature and became like us in body, reason-
ably was He therefore called both our Brother
and ' First-born'.' For though it was after
us^ that He was made man for us, and
our brother by similitude of body, still He is
therefore called and is the ' First-born ' of us,
because, all men being lost according to the
transgression of Adam, His flesh before all
others was saved and liberated, as being the
Word's body 3 ; and henceforth we, becoming
incorporate with It, are saved after Its pattern.
For in It the Lord becomes our guide to the
Kingdom of Heaven and to His own Father,
saying, ' I am the way ' and ' the door '^,' and
' through Me all must enter.' Whence also is
He said to be ' First-born from the dead s,' not
that He died before us, for we had died first ;
but because having undergone death for us
and abolished it, He was the first to rise,
as man, for our sakes raising His own Body.
Henceforth He having risen, we too from
Him and because of Him rise in due course
from the dead.
6 Col. i. i8.
1 Rom. viii. 29. Bishop Bull's hypothesis about the sense of
TTpMTOTOKOs Trjs KTicTciDS has been commented on su^r. p. 347.
As far as Athan.'s discussion proceeds in this section, it only
relates to ttpwtotokos of men (i.e. from the dead), and is
equivalent to the ' beginning of ways.'
2 Marcellus seems to have argued against Asterius from the
same texts (Euseb. in Marc. p. 12), that, since Christ is called
' first-born from the dead,' though others had been recalled to life
before Him, therefore He is called 'first-born of creation," not
in point of time, but of dignity, vid. Montacut. Not. p. 11. Yet
Athan. argues contrariwise. Orat. iv. 29. 3 § 10, n. 7 ;
Orat. iii. 31. note. 4 John xiv. 6; x. g. 5 Rev. 1. 5.
382
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
62. But if He is also called 'First-born
of the cf eation %' still this is not as if He were
levelled to the creatures, and only first of them
in point of time (for how should that be, since
He is ' Only-begotten?'), but it is because of
the Word's condescension =^ to the creatures,
according to which He has become the
'Brother' of 'many.' For the term 'Only-
begotten ' is used where there are no brethren,
but ' First-born 3 ' because of brethren. Ac-
cordingly it is nowhere written in the Scrip-
tures, ' the first-born of God,' nor ' the creature
of God ; ' but ' Only-begotten ' and ' Son '
and ' Word ' and ' Wisdom,' refer to Him
as proper to the Father*. Thus, 'We have
seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-be-
gotten of the Father s ; ' and ' God sent His
Only-begotten Son 6;' and 'O Lord, Thy
Word endureth for ever 7 ; ' and ' In the be-
ginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God;' and 'Christ the Power of God and
the Wisdom of God^;' and 'This is My
beloved Son ; ' and ' Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the Living God?.' But 'first-born'
implied the descent to the creation '° ; for of
it has He been called first-born ; and ' He
created ' implies His grace towards the works,
for for them is He created. If then He is
Only-begotten, as indeed He is, ' First-born '
needs some explanation ; but if He be really
First-born, then He is not Only-begotten '°
For the same cannot be both Only-begotten
and First-born, except in different relations ; —
that is. Only-begotten, because of His genera-
tion from the Father, as has been said ; and
First-born, because of His condescension to
the creation and His ' making the many
His brethren. Certainly, those two terms
being inconsistent with each other, one should
say that the attribute of being Only-begot-
ten has justly the preference in the instance of
* Here again, though speaking of the 'first-born of creation,'
Athan. simply views the phrase as equivalent to 'first-born of the
new creation or " d>otker" of many;' and so in/r. 'first-born
because of the brotherhood He has made with many.'
2 Bp. Bull considers (ruyKarajSao-is as equivalent to a figurative
yivvr]<yi^, an idea which (vid. supr. p. 346 sg.) seems quite
foreign from Athan. 's meaning. In Bull's sense of the word,
Athan. could not have said that the senses of Only-begotten and
First-born were contrary to each other, Or. i. 28. SvyKarajSrji'at
occurs supr. 51 fin. of the Incarnation. What is meant by it will
be found in/r. 78 — 81. viz. that our Lord came ' to implant in the
creatures a type and semblance of His Image ; ' which is just what
is here maintained against Bull. The whole passage referred to is
a comment on the word cruyKardpaa-i,^, and begins and ends with
an introduction of that word. Vid. also c. Gent. 47.
3 Vid. Rom. viii. 29.
4 This passage has been urged against Bull stifr. Exc. B.
All the words (says Athan.) which are proper to the Son, and
describe Him fitly, are expressive of what is 'internal' to the
Divine Nature, as Begotten, Word, Wisdom, Glory, Hand, &c.,
but (ashe adds presently) the 'first-born,' like 'beginning of
ways^' is relative to creation ; and therefore cannot denote our
Lord s essence or Divine subsistence, but something temporal, an
ofiice, character, or the like. S John i. 14.
6 I John iv. 9. 7 Ps. jxix. 89. 8 i Cor. i. 24.
9 Matt. iii. 17 ; xvi. 16.
10 This passage is imitated by Theodoret. in Coloss. i. 15, but
the passages from tha Fathers referable to these Orations are too
many to enumerate.
the Word, in that there is no other Word, or
other Wisdom, but He alone is very Son of the
Father. Moreover", as was before ^^ said, not
in connection with any reason, but absolutely =^3
it is said of Him, ' The Only-begotten Son
which is in the bosom of the Father '-* ; ' but
the word ' First-born ' has again the creation
as a reason in connection with it, which Paul
proceeds to say, ' for in Him all things were
created ^s.' But if all the creatures were cre-
ated in Him, He is other than the creatures,
and is not a creature, but the Creator of the
creatures.
()2,- Not then because He was from the
Father was He called ' First-born,' but because
in Him the creation came to be ; and as before
the creation He was the Son, through whom
Avas the creation, so also before He was called
the First-born of the whole creation, not the less
was the Word Himself with God and the Word
was God. But this also not understanding,
these irreligious men go about saying, ' If He
is First-born of all creation, it is plain that
He too is one of the creation.' Senseless
men! if He is simply 'First-born^ of the
whole creation,' then He is other than the
whole creation ; for he says not, ' He is First-
born above the rest of the creatures,' lest He be
reckoned to be as one of the creatures, but it is
written, 'of the whole creation,' that He may
appear other than the creation ^. Reuben, for
instance, is not said to be first-born of all the
children of Jacob 3, but of Jacob himself and
his brethren ; lest he should be thought to be
some other beside the children of Jacob. Nay,
even concerning the Lord Himself the Aposde
says not, ' that He may become First-born of
II We now come to a third and wider sense of TrpcoroTOKo?, as
found (not in Rom. viii. 29, and Col. i. 18, but) in Col. i. 15,
where by ' creation ' Athan. understands ' all things visible and
invisible." As then 'for the works ' was just now taken to argue
that ' created ' was used in a relative and restricted sense, the
same is shewn as regards ' first-born by the words ' for in Him all
things were created.' '^ i. 52.
13 a.i!oKtkv\>.ivui% ; supr. i. 56, note 6, and §§ S3> 56, and so
aToA.UTWs Theophylact to express the same distinction i>i loc,
Coloss. 14 John i. 18. '5 Col. i. 16.
1 It would be perhaps better to translate ' first-born to the
creature,' to give Athan.'s idea ; -r^s KTi<Teoji not being a partitive
genitive, or TrpwroroKos a superlative (though he presently so con-
siders it), but a simple appellative and ttjs kt. a common genitive
of relation, as ' the king of a country,' ' the owner of a house.'
' First-born of creation' is like 'author, type, life of creation.'
Hence S. Paul goes on at once to say, ' for in Him all things were
made,' not simply ' by and for,' as at the end of the verse ; or as
Athan. says here, ' because in Him the creation came to be.' On
the distinction of Sia and «'r, referring respectively to the first and
second creations, vid. /« iiiud Otnn. 2. (Supr. p. 88.)
2 To understand this passage, the Greek idiom must be kept
in view. Cf. Milton's imitation 'the fairest of her daughters Eve.'
Vid. as regards the very word Trpuros, John i. 15 ; and suj/r. § 30,
note 3, also TrAetcrTrji' t\ iixwpotjBiv efov<riai/ 3 Maccab. 7, 21. Ac-
cordingly as in the comparative to obviate this exclusion, we put
in the word 'other' (ante 'alios immanior omnes), so too in the
Greek superlative, ' Socrates is wisest of " other" heathen.' Atha-
nasius then says in this passage, that ' first-bom of creatures '
impliss that our Lord was not a creature ; whereas it is not said
of Him 'first-born of brethren,' lest He should be excluded from
men, but first-born "among " brethren,' where ' among ' is equiva-
lent to ' other.'
3 Gen. xlix. 3, LXX. Vid. also contr. Gent. 41 sq. where the
text Col. i. IS is quoted.
DISCOURSE II.
I
all,' lest He be thought to bear a body other than
ours, but ' among many brethren ■*,' because of
the likeness of the flesh. If then the Word also
were one of the creatures. Scripture would have
said of Him also that He was First-born of other
creatures ; but in fact, the saints saying that He
is ' First-born of the whole creations,' the Son of
God is plainly shewn to be other than the whole
creation and not a creature. For if He is a
creature. He will be First-born of Himself.
How then is it possible, O Arians, for Him to
be before and after Himself? next, if He is
a creature, and the whole creation through
Him came to be, and in Him consists, how
can He both create the creation and be
one of the things which consist in Him ?
Since then such a notion is in itself unseemly,
it is proved against them by the truth,
that He is called ' First-born among many
brethren ' because of the relationship of the
flesh, and * First-born from the dead,' because
the resurrection of the dead is from Him and
after Him ; and ' First-born of the whole
creation,' because of the Father's love to man,
which brought it to pass that in His Word not
only ' all things consist ^,' but the creation itself,
of which the Apostle speaks, ' waiting for the
manifestation of the sons of God, shall be
delivered' one time 'from the bondage of
corruption into the glorious liberty of the
children of God 7.' Of this creation thus
delivered, the Lord will be First-born, both of
it and of all those who are made children, that
by His being called first, those that come after
Him may abide ^, as depending on the Word as
a beginnings.
64. And I think that the irreligious men
themselves will be shamed from such a
thought ; for if the case stands not as we
have said, but they will rule it that He is
' First-born of the whole creation ' as in
essence — a creature among creatures, let them
reflect that they will be conceiving Him as
brother and fellow of the things without reason
and life. For of the whole creation these also
are parts ; and the ' First-born ' must be first
indeed in point of time but only thus, and in
kind and similitude ' must be the same with
all. How then can they say this without
exceeding all measures of irreligion ? or who
will endure them, if this is their language ? or
who can but hate them even imagining such
things ? For it is evident to all, that neither for
Himself, as being a creature, nor as having any
connection according to essence with the
whole creation, has He been called 'First-
4 Rom. viii 29. S Col. i. 15. ^ lb. i. 17.
7 Rom. viii. 19, 21. Thus there are two senses in which our
Lord is 'first-born to the creation;' viz. in its first origin, and
in its restoration after man's fall ; as he says more clearly in the
Bext section. 8 X)e Deer. 19, n. 3. 9 i. 48, n. 7. ' § 20.
born ' of it : but because the Word, when at
the beginning He framed the creatures, con-
descended to things originate, that it might be
possible for them to come to be. For they
could not have endured His nature, which was
untempered splendour, even that of the Father,
unless condescending by the Father's love for
man He had supported them and taken hold of
them and brought them into existence ^ ; and
next, because, by this condescension of the
Word, the creation too is made a sons through
Him, that He might be in all respects ' First-
born ' of it, as has been said, both in creating,
and also in being brought for the sake of all
into this very world. For so it is written,
'When He bringeth the First-born into the
world, He saith. Let all the Angels of God
worship Him 1' Let Christ's enemies hear and
tear themselves to pieces, because His coming
into the world is what makes Him called
' First-born ' of all ; and thus the Son is the
Father's ' Only-begotten,' because He alone is
from Him, and He is the ' First-born of crea-
tion,' because of this adoption of all as sons s.
And as He is First-born among brethren and
rose from the dead ' the first fruits of them
that slept '^;' so, since it became Him 'in all
things to have the preeminence ?,' therefore He
is created ' a beginning of ways,' that we, walk-
ing along it and entering through Him who says,
' I am the Way' and ' the Door,' and partaking
of the knowledge of the Father, may also hear
the words, ' Blessed are the undefiled in the
Way,' and 'Blessed are the pure in heart, for
they shall see God ^.'
65. And thus since the truth declares that
the Word is not by nature a creature, it is fitting
now to say, in what sense He is ' beginning of
2 He does not here say with Asterius that God could not create
man immediately, for the Word is God, but that He did not create
him without at the same time infusing a grace or presence from
Himself into his created nature to enable it to endure His external
plastic hand ; in other words, that he was created in Hint, not
as something external to Him (in spite of the hia. supr. 63, n. i.
vid. supr. de Deer. 19. 3. and Gent. 47. where the o-uyKaxa^ao-is is
spoken of.
3 As God created Him, in that He created human nature in
Him, so is ^sfirsi-born, in that human nature is adopted in Him.
Leo Serin. 63. 3. 4 Heb. i. 6.
5 Thus he considers that ' first-born ' is mainly a title, con-
nected with the Incarnation, and also connected with our Lord's
office at the creation (vid. parallel of Priesthood, § 8, n. 4). In
each economy it has the same meaning; it belongs to Him as the
type, idea, or rule on which the creature was made or new-made,
and the life by which it is sustained. Both economies are men-
tioned Incarii. 13, 14. Orat. i. 51. iii. 20. infr. -jt. init. He
came iy\v tov ap;(eTU7rov ■rzKa.mv avaa-rria'aiTOaL eavTco contr. Apoll.
ii. 5. And so again, 17 iSe'a OTrep Aoyoi' iipr\Ka.aL. Clem. Strom.
V. 3, ISeav ISsuiU Kai ap\7)v Ae/creoi' rbi/ TrpajjoTOKov Traa"!)? KTtVews
Origen. couir. Cels. vi. 64. fin. ' Whatever God was about to
make in the creature, was already in the Word, nor would be in
the things, were it not in the Word.' August, in Psalm xliv. 5.
He elsewhere calls the Son, 'ars qusedam omnipotentis atque
sapientis Dei, plena omnium rationum viventium incommuta-
bilium.' de Trin. vi. 11. And so Athan. infr. iii. 9. fin. Euse-
bius, in commenting on the very passage which Athan. is discus-
sing (Prov. viii. 22), presents a remarkable contrast to these pas-
sages, as making the Son, not the i&ia, but the external minister of
tlie Father's iSea. de Eccl. Theol. pp. 164, 5. vid. supr. § 31, n. 7.
6 I Cor. XV. 20. 7 Col. i. 18.
8 Ps. cxix. I ; Matt. v. 8.
384
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
ways.' For when the first way, which was
through Adam, was lost, and in place of para-
dise we deviated unto death, and heard the
words, ' Dust thou art, and unto dust ^ shalt
thou return,' therefore the Word of God, who
loves man, puts on Him created flesh at the
Father's will % that whereas the first man had
made it dead through the transgression. He
Himself might quicken it in the blood of His
• own body 3, and might open 'for us a way new
and living,' as the Apostle says, 'through
the veil, that is to say, His flesh^;' which he
signifies elsewhere thus, ' Wherefore, if any man
be in Christ, he is a new creation ; old things
are passed away, behold all things are become
news.' But if a new creation has come to pass,
some one must be first of this creation ; now
a man, made of earth only, such as we are
become from the transgression, he could not be.
For in the first creation, men had become
unfaithful, and through them that first creation
had been lost ; and there was need of some one
else to renew the first creation, and preserve
the new which had come to be. Therefore
from love to man none other than the Lord,
the 'beginning ' of the new creation, is created
as * the Way,' aijd consistently says, ' The Lord
created me a beginning of v/ays for His works ; '
that man might walk* no longer according to
that first creation, but there being as it were
a beginning of a new creation, and with the
Christ ' a beginning of its ways,' we might follow
Him henceforth, who says to us, * I am the
Way:' — as the blessed Apostle teaches in
Colossians, saying, ' He is the Head of the
body, the Church, who is the Beginning, the
First-born from the dead, that in all things He
might have the preeminence.'
66. For if, as has been said, because of the
resurrection from the dead He is called a begin-
ning, and then a resurrection took place when
He, bearing our flesh, had given Himself to
death for us, it is evident that His words, ' He
created me a beginning of ways,' is indicative
not of His essence ^, but of His bodily pre-
sence. For to the body death was proper ? ;
and in like manner to the bodily presence are
the words proper, ' The Lord created me a
I Gen. iii. lo. = § 31, n. 8.
3 Vid. Or. 1. § 48, 7, i. 51, 5, •?«/>"• 56, 5- Irenseus, fftsr. iii.
19, n. I. Cyril, in Joan. lib. ix. cir. fin. This is the doctrine of S.
Athanasius and S. Cyril, one may say , Jiassim.
4 Heb. X. 20. 5 2 Cor. v. 17. 6 § 45, n. 2.
7 Athanasius here says that our Lord's body was subject to
death ; and so Incarn. 20, e. also 8, b. 18. init. Orat. iii. 56. And
so Tov avdptaiTov <ra.6poi9evTa. Orat. iv. 33. And so S. Leo in his
Tome lays down that in the Incarnation, suscepta estab aetemitate
raortalitas. Ep. 28. 3. And S. Austin, Utique vulnerabile atque
mortale corpus habuit [Christus] contr. Faust, xiv. 2. A Euty-
chian sect denied this doctrine (the Aphthartodocetse), and held
that our Lord's manhood was naturally indeed corrupt, but became
from its union with the Word incorrupt from the moment of con-
ception ; and in consequence it held that our Lord did not suffer
and die, except by miracle, vid. Leont. c. Nest. ii. (Canis. t. i.
pp. 563, 4, 8.) vid. siipr. i. 43 and 44, notes; also in/r. 76, note.
And further, note on iii. 57.
beginning of His ways.' For since the Saviour
was thus created according to the flesh, and had
become a beginning of things new created, and
had our first fruits, viz. that human flesh which
He took to Himself, therefore after Him, as is
fit, is created also the people to come, David
saying, ' Let this be written for another gener-
ation, and the people that shall be created
shall praise the Lord 2.' And again in the
twenty-first Psalm, 'The generation to come
shall declare unto the Lord, and they shall
declare His righteousness, unto a people that
shall be born whom the Lord made 3.' For
we shall no more hear, * In the day that
thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die ^ ; '
but ' Where I am, there ye ' shall ' be also ;'
so that we may say, * We are His work-
manship, created unto good works s,' And
again, since God's work, that is, man, though
created perfect, has become wanting through
the transgression, and dead by sin, and it was
unbecoming that the work of God should
remain imperfect (wherefore all the saints
were praying concerning this, for instance in
the hundred and thirty-seventh Psalm, saying,
'Lord, Thou shalt requite for me; despise
not then the works of Thine hands ^ ') ;
therefore the perfect 7 Word of God puts
around Him an imperfect body, and is said
to be created ' for the works ; ' that, pay-
ing the debt ^ in our stead. He might,
by Himself, perfect what was wanting to
man. Now immortality was wanting to him,
and the way to paradise. This then is what
the Saviour says, * I glorified Thee on the
earth, I perfected the work which Thou
hast given Me to do 9 ; ' and again, * The
works which the Father hath given Me
to perfect, the same works that I do, bear
witness of Me ; ' but 'the works ^°' He here
says that the Father had given Him to perfect,
are those for which He is created, saying in the
Proverbs, ' The Lord created me a begin-
ning of His ways, for His works ; ' for it is all
one to say, * The Father hath given me the
works,' and ' The Lord created me for the
works.'
67. When then received He the works to
perfect, O God's enemies? for from this also
' He created ' will be understood. If ye say,
'At the beginning when He brought them into
being out of what was not,' it is an untruth ;
for they were not yet made; whereas He
appears to speak as taking what was already
in being. Nor is it pious to refer to the time
» Ps. cii. 18. 3 lb. xxii. 3a. 4 Gen. ii. 17.
S John xiv. 3 ; Eph. ii. 10. 6 Ps. cxxxviii. 8.
7 Cf. Orat. IV. II. _
8 avB' Tjiiiiv Tr\v b<}>€iKr)v airoSiSous, and so the Lord's death
KvTpov TrdvToiv. Incarn. V.D. 25. XvTpov KaOapaiov. Naz. Orat,
30, 20. fin. also supr. 9, 13, 14, 47, 55, 67. In Illud. Own, 2 fin.
9 John xvii. 4. »o lb. v. 36.
DISCOURSE II.
385
which preceded the Word's becoming flesh,
lest His coming should thereupon seem super-
fluous, since for the sake of these works that
coming took place. Therefore it remains for us
to say that when He has become man, then He
took the works. For then He perfected them,
by healing our wounds and vouchsafing to us
the resurrection from the dead. But if, when
the Word became flesh, then were given to
Him the works, plainly when He became man,
then also is He created for the works. Not
of His essence then is * He created ' indica-
tive, as has many times been said, but of His
bodily generation. For then, because the
works were become imperfect and mutilated
from the transgression. He is said in respect
to the body to be created ; that by perfecting
them and making them whole. He might
present the Church unto the Father, as the
Apostle says, * not having spot or wrinkle or
any such thing, but holy and without blemish ^'
Mankind then is perfected in Him and re-
stored, as it was made at the beginning, nay,
with greater grace. For, on rising from the
dead, we shall no longer fear death, but shall
ever reign in Christ in the heavens. And this
has been done, since the own Word of God
Himself, who is from the Father, has put on
the flesh, and become man. For if, being a
creature. He had become man, man had re-
mained just what he was, not joined to God ;
for how had a work been joined to the Creator
by a work " ? or what succour had come from
like to like, when one as well as other needed
it 3? And how, were the Word a creature,
had He power to undo God's sentence, and to
remit sin, whereas it is written in the Prophets,
that this is God's doing ? For ' who is a God
like unto Thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and
passeth by transgression *?' For whereas God
has said, ' Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt
thou return s,' men have become mortal ; how
then could things originate undo sin ? but the
Lord is He who has undone it, as He says
Himself, 'Unless the Son shall make you
free^j' and the Son, who made free, has shewn
in truth that He is no creature, nor one of
things originate, but the proper Word and
Image of the Father's Essence, who at the
beginning sentenced, and alone remitteth sins.
For since it is said in the Word, ' Dust thou
art, and unto dust thou shalt return,' suitably
through the Word Himself and in Him the
1 Eph. V. 27.
2 Vid. de Deer. 10, 2. 4 ; Or. i. 49, § 16, n. 7. Iren. Heer.
"'• 20. . . . _ .
3 Cf. infr. Orat. iv. 6. vid. also lu. 33 init. August. Trtn. xiu.
18. Id. hi Psalm 129, n. 12. Leon. Serm. 28, n. 3. Basil, in
Psalm 48, n. 4. Cyril, de red. fid. p. 132. vid. also Prod. Orat.
i. p. 63. (ed. 1630.) Vigil, contr. Eutych. v. p. 529, e. Greg. Moral.
xxiv. init. Job. ap. Phot. 222. p. 583. . , » ,
4 Mic. vii. 18. 5 Gen. iii. 19. » Vid. John viu. 36.
freedom and the undoing of the condemnation
has come to pass.
68. 'Yet,' they say, 'though the Saviour
were a creature, God was able to speak the
word only and undo the curse.' And so an-
other will tell them in like manner, ' Without
His coming among us at all, God was able
just to speak and undo the curse ; ' but we
must consider what was expedient for man-
kind, and not what simply is possible with
God ^ He could have destroyed, before the
ark of Noah, the then transgressors ; but He
did it after the ark. He could too, without
Moses, have spoken the word only and have
brought the people out of Egypt ; but it pro-
fited to do it through Moses. And God was
able without the judges to save His people;
but it was profitable for the people that for a
season judges should be_ raised up to them.
The Saviour too might have come among us
from the beginning, or on His coming might
not have been delivered to Pilate ; but He
came ' at the fulness of the ages%' and when
sought for said, 'I am He 3.' For what He
does, that is profitable for men, and was not
fitting in any other way ; and what is profit-
able and fitting, for that He provides '•. Ac-
cordingly He came, not ' that He might be
ministered unto, but that He might minister s,'
and might work our salvation. Certainly He
was able to speak the Law from heaven, but
He saw that it was expedient to men for Him
to speak from Sinai ; and that He has done, that
it might be possible for Moses to go up, and for
them hearing the word near them the rather
to believe. Moreover, the good reason of
what He did may be seen thus ; if God had
but spoken, because it was in His power, and
so the curse had been undone, the power had
been shewn of Him who gave the word, but
man had become such as Adam was before
the transgression, having received grace from
without^, and not having it united to the
body ; (for he was such when he was placed
in Paradise) nay, perhaps had become worse,
1 Vid. also Incarn. 44. In this statement Athan. is supported
by Naz. Orat. 19, 13. Theodor. adv. Gent. vi. p. 876, 7. August.
de Trin. xiii. 13. It is denied in a later age by S. Anselm, but
S. Thomas and the schoolmen side with the Fathers, vid. Petav.
Incarn. ii. 13. However, it will be observed from what follows
that Athan. thought the Incarnation still absolutely essential for
the renewal of human nature in holiness. Cf. de Incarn. 7. That
is, we might have been pardoned, we could not have been new-
made, without the Incarnation ; and so supr. 67.
2 Gal. iv. 4. 3 John xviii. 5.
4 ' Was it not in His power, had He wished it, even in a day to
bring on the whole rain [of the deluge]? in a day, nay in a mo-
ment?' Chrysost. in Gen. Horn. 34, 7. He proceeds to apply this
principle to the pardon of sin. On the subject of God's power
as contrasted with His acts, Petavius brings together the state-
ments of the Fathers, de Deo, v. 6. 5 Vid. Matt. xx. 28.
6 Athan. here seems to say that Adam in a state of innocence
had but an external divine assistance, not an habitual grace ; this,
however, is contrary to his own statements already referred to, and
the general doctrine of the fathers, vid. e.g. Cyril, in Joan. v. e.
August, de Corr. et Grat. 31. vid also infr. % 76, note
VOL. IV.
C C
386
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
because he had learned to transgress. Such
then being his condition, had he been se-
duced by the serpent, there had been fresh
need for God to give command and undo the
curse ; and thus the need had become inter-
minable 7, and men had remained under guilt
not less than before, as being enslaved to sin ;
and, ever sinning, would have ever needed
one to pardon them, and had never become
free, being in themselves flesh, and ever
worsted by the Law because of the infirmity
of the flesh.
69. Again, if the Son were a creature, man
had remained mortal as before, not being
joined to God ; for a creature had not joined
creatures to God, as seeking itself one to join
it^; nor would a portion of the creation have
been the creation's salvation, as needing sal-
vation itself. To provide against this also.
He sends His own Son, and He becomes Son
of Man, by taking created flesh ; that, since
all were under sentence of death. He, being
other than them all, might Himself for all
ofter to death His own body ; and that hence-
forth, as if all had died through Him, the word
of that sentence might be accomplished (for
' all died ^ ' in Christ), and all through Him
might thereupon become free from sin and
from the curse which came upon it, and might
truly abide 3 for ever, risen from the dead and
clothed in immortality and incorruption. For,
the Word being clothed in the flesh, as has
many times been explained, every bite of
the serpent began to be utterly staunched
from out it; and whatever evil sprung from
the motions of the flesh, to be cut away, and
with these death also was abolished, the com-
panion of sin, as the Lord Himself says*,
' The prince of this world cometh, and findeth
nothing in Me ;' and ' For this end was He
manifested,' as John has written, 'that He
might destroy the works of the devils,' And
these being destroyed from the flesh, we all
were thus liberated by the kinship of the
flesh, and for the future were joined, even
we, to the Word. And being joined to God,
no longer do we abide upon earth ; but, as
He Himself has said, where He is, there shall
we be also; and henceforward we shall fear
no longer the serpent, for he was brought to
nought when he was assailed by the Saviour
in the flesh, and heard Him say, ' Get thee
behind Me, Satan ^,' and thus he is cast out of
paradise into the eternal fire. Nor shall we
have to watch against woman beguiling us, for
*in the resurrection they neither marry nor
7 els airetpoi', de Deer. 8. ' De Deer. lo.
2 2 Cor, V. 14. _ 3 SiaixeCvaxriv, % 63, n. 8 ; § 73, Geni. 41,
Ser7n. Maj. de Fid. 5. 4 John xiv. 30. i\ii. t. rec. evpC<TKei
Ath ei al. 5 i John iii. 8. * Matt. xvi. 23.
are given in marriage, but are as the Angels ^ ;'
and in Christ Jesus it shall be ' a new crea-
tion,' and * neither male nor female, but all
and in all Christ^;' and where Christ is, what
fear, what danger can still happen ?
70. But this would not have come to pass,
had the Word been a creature ; for with a
creature, the devil, himself a creature, would
have ever continued the battle, and man,
being between the two, had been ever in peril
of death, having none in whom and through
whom he might be joined to God and delivered
from all fear. Whence the truth shews us that
the Word is not of things originate, but rather
Himself their Framer. For therefore did He
assume the body originate and human, that
having renewed it as its Framer, He might
deify it ^ in Himself, and thus might introduce
us all into the kingdom of heaven after His
likeness. For man had not been deified if
joined to a creature, or unless the Son were
very God ; nor had man been brought into the
Father's presence, unless He had been His
natural and true Word who had put on the
body. And as we had not been delivered
from sin and the curse, unless it had been
by nature human flesh, which the Word put
on (for we should have had nothing common
with what was foreign), so also the man had
not been deified, unless the Word who be-
came flesh had been by nature from the
Father and true and proper to Him, For
therefore the union was of this kind, that
He might unite what is man by nature to Him
who is in the nature of the Godhead, and his
salvation and deification might be sure. There-
fore let those who deny that the Son is from
the Father by nature and proper to His
Essence, deny also that He took true human
flesh ^ of Mary Ever-Virgin 3 ; for in neither
case had it been of profit to us men, whether
the Word were not true and naturally Son
7 Mark xii. 23. ^ Gal. vi. 15 ; iii. 28,
I iv eavTti eeoTroffjiTT). su^r. p. 65, note 5. vid. also ad Adelph.
4. a. Serap!\. 24, e. and §56, note 5. and iii. 33. De Deer. 14.
Orat. i. 42. vid. also Orat. iii. 23. fin. 33. init. 34. fin. 38, b. 39,
d. 48. fin. S3. For our becoming dtoi vid. Orat.\\\. 25. O^oX ko-to.
X°-pi.v. Cyr. in Joan. p. 74. eeo(j>opoyji.e9a. Orat. iii. 23, c. 41, a. 45
init. xP'<'"ro<^opot. ibid. deovix^Oa. iii. 48 fin. 53. Theodor. //.£. i.
p. 846. init. 2 §45, n. 2. . r..,-
3 Vid. also Athan. in Lite. (Migne xxvu. 1393 c)._ This
title, which is commonly applied to S. Mary by later writers, is
found Epiph. Har. 78, 5. Didym. Trin. i. 27. p. 84. Rufin. Fid. i.
43. Lepor. ap Cassian. Incarn. i. 5. Leon. Ep. 28, 2. Ca;sarius
has detTrals. Qu. 20. On the doctrine itself vid. a letter of S. Am-
brose and his brethren to Siricius, and the Pope's letter in response.
(Const. Ep. Pont. p. 669—682.) Also Pearson On the Creed, Art.
3. [§§ 9, 10, p. 267 in Bohn's ed.] He replies to the argu-
ment from 'until' in Matt. i. 25, by referring to Gen. xxviii
15. Deut. xxxiv. 6. i Sam. xv. 35. 2 Sam. vi. 23. Matt, xxviii
20. He might also have referred to Psalm ex. i. i Cor. xv. 25.
which are the more remarkable, because they were urged by the
school of Marcellus as a proof that our Lord's kingdom would
have an end, and are explained by Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. 13, 14.
Vid. also Cyr. Cat. 15, 29 ; where the true meaning of ' until '
(which may be transferred to Matt. i. 25), is well brought out.
' He who is King before He subdued His enemies, how shall He
not the rather be King, after He has got the mastery over them?
DISCOURSE 11.
387
of God, or the flesh not true which He as-
sumed. But surely He took true flesh, though
Valentinus rave ; yea the Word was by nature
Very God, though Ariomaniacs rave * ; and in
that flesh has come to pass the beginnings
of our new creation. He being created man
for our sake, and having made for us that new
way, as has been skid.
71. The Word then is neither creature nor
work ; for creature, thing made, work, are all
one ; and were He creature and thing made, He
would also be work. Accordingly He has not
said, ' He created Me a work,' nor ' He made
Me with the works,' lest He should appear to
be in nature and essence^ a creature; nor,
^ He created Me to make works,' lest, on
the other hand, according to the perverseness
of the irreligious. He should seem as an in-
strument 7 made for our sake. Nor again
has He declared, ' He created Me before the
works,' lest, as He really is before all, as an
Offspring, so, if created also before the works,
He should give ' Offspring ' and ' He created '
the same meaning. But He has said with
exact discrimination 8, 'for the works;' as
much as to say, ' The Father has made Me
into flesh, that I might be man,' which again
shews that He is not a work but an offspring.
For as he who comes into a house, is not
part of the house, but is other than the house,
so He who is created for the works, must be
by nature other than the works. But if other-
wise, as you hold, O Arians, the Word of
God be a work, by what9 Hand and Wisdom
did He Himself come into being? for all
things that came to be, came by the Hand
and Wisdom of God, who Himself says, ' My
hand hath made all these things';' and David
says in the Psalm, ' And Thou, Lord, in the
beginning hast laid the foundations of the
earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy
hands^;' and again, in the hundred and forty-
second Psalm, ' I do remember the time past,
I muse upon all Thy works, yea I exercise
myself in the works of Thy hands 3.' There-
fore if by the Hand of God the works are
wrought, and it is written that ' all things were
made through the Word,' and ' without Him
was not made one thing %' and again, 'One Lord
Jesus, through whom are all things s,' and 'in
Him all things consist^,' it is very plain that
the Son cannot be a work, but He is the
Hand? of God and the Wisdom. This know-
ing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias,
and Misael, arraign the Arian irreUgion. For
♦ De Syn. 13, n. 4. _ S i. 48, n. 7. ^ § 45> note 2.
7 opyai/oi/, note on iii. 31. ° § 12, note. 9 § 22, n. 2.
« Is. Ixvi. a. 2 Ps. cii. 25. 3 lb. cxliii. 5,
'' John i. 3 Si Cor. viii. 9. 6 Col. i. 17.
7 § 31, n. 4.
when they say, ' O all ye works of the Lord,
bless ye the Lord,' they recount things in
heaven, things on earth, and the whole crea-
tion, as works ; but the Son they name not.
For they say not, ' Bless, O Word, and praise,
O Wisdom ; ' to shew that all other things
are both praising and are works ; but the
Word is not a work nor of those that praise,
but is praised with the Father and worshipped
and confessed as God^, being His Word and
Wisdom, and of the works the Framer. This
too the Spirit has declared in the Psalms with
a most apposite distinction, ' the Word of the
Lord is true, and all His works are faithful 9 ; '
as in another Psalm too He says, ' O Lord,
how manifold are Thy works ! in Wisdom
hast Thou made them all'°.'
72. But if the Word were a work, then
certainly He as others had been made in
Wisdom ; nor would Scripture distinguish
Him from the works, nor while it named
them works, preach Him as Word and
own Wisdom of God. But, as it is, dis-
tinguishing Him from the works. He shews
that Wisdom is Framer of the works, and not
a work. This distinction Paul also observes,
writing to the Hebrews, ' The Word of God is
quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-
edged sword, reaching even to the dividing of
soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and a dis-
cerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart,
neither is there any creature hidden before Him,
but all things are naked and open unto the eyes
of Him with whom is our account ^' For
behold he calls things originate 'creature;' but
the Son he recognises as the Word of God, as
if He were other than the creatures. And
again saying, ' All things are naked and open
to the eyes of Him with whom is our account,'
he signifies that He is other than all of them.
For hence it is that He judges, but each of all
things originate is bound to give account to
Him. And so also, when the whole creation
is groaning together with us in order to be set
free from the bondage of corruption, the Son is
thereby shewn to be other than the creatures.
For if He were creature. He too would be one
of those who groan, and would need one who
should bring adoption and deliverance to Him-
self as well as others. But if the whole crea-
tion groans together, for the sake of freedom
from the bondage of corruption, whereas the
Son is not of those that groan nor of those who
need freedom, but He it is who gives sonship
and freedom to all, saying to the Jews of His
8 fleoXoyov/n6vo5. vid. de Deer. 31, n. 5. also Incam. c. Ar. 3.
19, Serap. i. 28. 29. 31. coiitr. Sab. Greg, and passii)i ap. Euseb.
co'idr. Mareell. e.g. p. 42, d. 86, a. 99, d. 122, c. 124, b. &C Kvpto-
Aoyetv, In Illud. Omn. 6, contr. Sa/>. Greg. § 4, f.
9 Ps. xxxiii. 4. '° lb. civ. 24. ' Heb. iv. 12, 13.
C C 2
388
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
time ^, * The servant remains not in the house
for ever, but the Son remaineth for ever ; if then
the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free
indeed 3 ;' it is clearer than the light from these
considerations also, that the Word of God is not
a creature but true Son, and by nature genuine,
of the Father. Concerning then ' The Lord
hath created me a beginning of the ways,' this
is sufficient, as I think, though in few words, to
afford matter to the learned to frame more
ample refutations of the Arian heresy.
CHAPTER XXII.
Texts Explained; Sixthly, the Context
OF Proverbs viii. 22, viz. 22 — 30.
It is right to interpret this passage by the Regula Fidei.
' Founded ' is used in contrast to superstructure ; and
it implies, as in the case of stones in building, pre-
vious existence. 'Before the world' signifies the
divine intention and purpose. Recurrence to Prov.
viii. 22, and application of it to created Wisdom as
seen in the worlcs. The Son reveals the Father, first
by the works, then by the Incarnation.
But since the heretics, reading the next
verse, take a perverse view of that also, be-
cause it is written, *He founded me before
the worlds,' namely, that this is said of
the Godhead of the Word and not of His
incarnate Presence s, it is necessary, explain-
ing this verse also, to shew their error.
73. It is written, ' The Lord in Wisdom
founded the earth ^ ; ' if then by Wisdom the
earth is founded, how can He who founds be
founded ? nay, this too is said after the manner
of proverbs % and we must in like manner
investigate its sense ; that we may know that,
while by Wisdom the Father frames and founds
the earth to be firm and steadfast 3, Wisdom
Itself is founded for us, that It may become
beginning and foundation of our new creation
and renewal. Accordingly here as before. He
says not, ' Before the world He hath made me
Word or Son,' lest there should be as it were a
beginning of His making. For this we must seek
before all things, whether He is Son \ and on
this point specially search the Scripturess j' for
2 § I, n. 6. 3 John viii. 35, 36. 4 Prov. viii. 23.
5 Or. i. 49, n. s. ' Prov. iii. 19. = Cf. 44, n. 3.
3 § 69. 3. 4 Serap. ii. 7, 8. _
5 Vid. supr. pp. 74, 172, and notes, vid. also Serap. 1.
32 init. iv. fin. contr. ApolL i. 6, 8, 9, 11, 22 ; ii. 8, 9, 13,
14, 17 — 19. ' The doctrine of the Church should be proved, not
announced (affo5eiKTtKtos ovk aTroc^ovxiKws) ; therefore shew that
Scripture thus teaches.' Theod. Eran. p. 199. Ambros. de Incam.
14. Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers. Tertull.
Cam. Christ. 7. vid. also 6. Max. dial. v. 29. Heretics
in particular professed to be guided by Scripture. Tertull.
PrtBscr. 8. For Gnostics vid. Tertullian's grave sarcasm : ' Utantur
haeretici omnes scripturis ejus, cujus utuntur etiam raundo.' Cam.
Christ. 6. For Arians, vid. supr. Or. i. i, n. 4. And so Marcellus,
'We consider it unsafe to lay dovifn doctrine concerning things
which we have not learned with exactness from the divine Scrip-
tures.' (leg. Trepi uc . . n-apa twi/). Euseb. Eccl. Theol. p. 177, d.
And Macedonians, vid. Leont. de Sect. iv. init. And Monophy-
sites, ' I have not learned this from Scripture ; and I have a great
fear of saying what it is silent about.' Theod. Eran. p. 215 ; also
Hilar, ad Const, ii. 9. Hieron. c. Lucif. 27. August. Ep. 120, 13.
this it was, when the Apostles were questioned,
that Peter answered, saying, ' Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the Living God ^,' This also
the father ^ of the Arian heresy asked as one
of his first questions ; ' If Thou be the Son of
God ^ ;' for he knew that this is the truth and
the sovereign principle of our faith ; and that,
if He were Himself the Son, the tyranny of the
devil would have its end ; but if He were a
creature. He too was one of those descended
from that Adam whom he deceived, and he had
no cause for anxiety. For the same reason the
Jews of the day9 were angered, because the
Lord said that He was Son of God, and that
God was His proper Father. For had He
called Himself one of the creatures, or said, * I
am a work,' they had not been startled at the
intelligence, nor thought such words blasphemy,
knowing, as they did, that even Angels had come
among their fathers ; but since He called Him-
self Son, they perceived that such was not the
note of a creature, but of Godhead and of the
Father's nature". The Arians then ought,
even in imitation of their own father the devil,
to take some special pains" on this point ; and
if He has said, ' He founded me to be Word
or Son,' then to think as they do ; but if He
has not so spoken, not to invent for themselves
what is not.
74. For He says not, ' Before the world He
founded me as Word or Son,' but simply, * He
founded me,' to shew again, as I have said,
that not for His own sake ' but for those who
are built upon Him does He here also speak,
after the way of proverbs. For this knowing, the
Apostle also writes, ' Other foundation can no
man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ ;
but let every man take heed how he buildeth
thereupon 2.' And it must be that the founda-
tion should be such as the things built on it,
that they may admit of being well compacted
together. Being then the Word, He has
not, as Word 3, any such as Himself, who may
be compacted with Him ; for He is Only-begot-
ten ; but having become man. He has the like
of Him, those namely the hkeness of whose
flesh He has put on. Therefore according to
His manhood He is founded, that we, as
precious stones, may admit of building upon
Him, and may become a temple of the Holy
Ghost who dwelleth in us. And as He is a
foundation, and we stones built upon Him, so
again He is a Vine and we knit to Him as
branches, — not according to the Essence of
the Godhead ; for this surely is impossible ; but
according to His manhood, for the branches
* Matt. xvi. 16. __ 7 Ep. yEe. 4. Sent. D. 3. c. in/r. 59 init.
67. fin. note infr. on iii. 8. ^ Matt. iv. 3. ^ 9 § i, n.j5.
10 Trarptic^j', vid. de Syn. 45, n. 1. " nepiepya^efrBai., vid. iiL
18. I § 60, n. 2. » I Cor. iii. 10, 11 ; Didym. Trtn. iii. 3.
p. 341- 3 § 8, note 3*.
I
DISCOURSE II.
389
must be like the vine, since we are like Him
according to the flesh. Moreover, since the
heretics have such human notions, we may
suitably confute them with human resemblances
contained in the very matter they urge. Thus
He saith not, ' He made me a foundation,'
lest He might seem to be made and to have
a beginning of being, and they might thence
find a shameless occasion of irreligion ; but,
* He founded me.' Now what is founded is
founded for the sake of the stones which are
raised upon it ; it is not a random process, but
a stone is first transported from the mountain
and set down in the depth of the earth. And
while a stone is in the mountain, it is not yet
founded ; but when need demands, and it is
transported, and laid in the depth of the earth,
then forthwith if the stone could speak, it would
say, ' He now founded me, who brought me
hither from the mountain.' Therefore the
Lord also did not when founded take a begin-
ning of existence ; for He was the Word before
that ; but when He put on our body, which He
severed and took from Mary, then He says ' He
hath founded me ; ' as much as to say, ' Me,
being the Word, He hath enveloped in a body
of earth.' For so He is founded for our sakes,
taking on Him what is ours *, that we, as
incorporated and compacted and bound to-
gether in Him through the likeness of the flesh,
may attain unto a perfect man, and abide s im-
mortal and incorruptible.
75. Nor let the words ' before the world ' and
' before He made the earth ' and ' bdfore the
mountains were settled ' disturb any one ; for
they very well accord with ' founded ' and
* created ; ' for here again allusion is made to
the Economy according to the flesh. For
though the grace which came to us from the
Saviour appeared, as the Apostle says, just now,
and has come when He sojourned among us ;
yet this grace had been prepared even before we
came into being, nay, before the foundation of
the world, and the reason why is kindly and
wonderful. It beseemed not that God should
counsel concerning us afterwards, lest He
should appear ignorant of our fate. The God
of all then, — creating us by His own Word,
and knowing our destinies better than we, and
foreseeing that, being made ' good S' we should
in the event be transgressors of the command-
ment, and be thrust out of paradise for dis-
obedience,— being loving and kind, prepared
beforehand in His own Word, by whom also
He created us% the Economy of our salvation ;
that though by the serpent's deceit we fell from
Him, we might not remain quite dead, but
•4 Letter 59. 6. Leon. Ep. 28. 3.
I Gen. L 31.
S Sia/xetcujaei', 69, n. 3.
3 i, 49, It. 10.
having in the Word the redemption and salva-
tion which was afore prepared for us, we might
rise again and abide immortal, what time He
should have been created for us ' a beginning
of the ways,' and He who was the ' First-born
of creation ' should become ' first-born ' of the
'brethren,' and again should rise 'first-fruits of
the dead.' This Paul the blessed Apostle
teaches in his writings ; for, as interpreting the
words of the Proverbs ' before the world ' and
' before the earth was,' he thus speaks to
Timothy 3 ; 'Be partaker of the afflictions of
the Gospel according to the power of God, who
hath saved us and called us with a holy calling,
not according to our works, but according to
His own purpose and grace, which was given us
in Christ Jesus before the world began, but is
now made manifest by the appearing of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death,
and brought to light life*.' And to the Ephe-
sians ; ' Blessed be God even the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all
spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ
Jesus, according as He hath chosen us in Him
before the foundation of the world, that we
should be holy and without blame before Him
in love, having predestinated us to the adoption
of children by Jesus Christ to Himselfs.'
76. How then has He chosen us, before we
came into existence, but that, as he says
himself, in Him we were represented^ before-
hand ? and how at all, before men were cre-
ated, did He predestinate us unto adoption,
but that the Son Himself was ' founded before
the world,' taking on Him that economy which
was for our sake? or how, as the Apostle
goes on to say, have we ' an inheritance being
predestinated,' but that the Lord Himself was
founded 'before the world,' inasmuch as He
had a purpose, for our sakes, to take on Him
through the flesh all that inheritance of judg-
ment which lay against us, and we henceforth
were made sons in Him ? and how did we
receive it 'before the world was,' when we
were not yet in being, but afterwards in time,
but that in Christ was stored the grace which
has reached us ? Wherefore also in the Judg-
ment, when every one shall receive according
to his conduct, He says, ' Come, ye blessed of
My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for
you from the foundation of the world ^' How
then, or in whom, was it prepared before we
came to be, save in the Lord who ' before the
world ' was founded for this purpose ; that we,
as built upon Him, might partake, as well-
compacted stones, the life and grace which
is from Him ? And this took place, as natur-
3 Didym. Tr^n. iii. 3. p. 342.
S Eph. i. 3—5. 6 Cf. 64, notes 3, s-
4 2 Tim. i. 8—10.
I Matt. XXV. 34.
390
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
ally suggests itself to the religious mind, that,
as I said, we, rising after our brief death, may
be capable of an eternal life, of which we had
not been capable^, men as we are, formed
of earth, but that ' before the world ' there
had been prepared for us in Christ the hope
of life and salvation. Therefore reason is
there that the Word, on coming into our
flesh, and being created in it as ' a beginning
of ways for His works,' is laid as a foundation
according as the Father's wills was in Him
before the world, as has been said, and before
land was, and before the mountains were
settled, and before the fountains burst forth ;
that, though the earth and the mountains and
the shapes of visible nature pass away in the
fulness of the present age, we on the contrary
may not grow old after their pattern, but
may be able to live after them, having the
spiritual life and blessing which before these
things have been prepared for us in the Word
Himself according to election. For thus we
shall be capable of a life not temporary, but
ever afterwards abide * and live in Christ ;
since even before this our life had been
founded and prepared in Christ Jesus.
77. Nor in any other way was it fitting that
our life should be founded, but in the Lord
who is before the ages, and through whom
the ages were brought to be ; that, since it
was in Him, we too might be able to inherit
that everlasting life. For God is good ; and
being good always, He willed this, as knowing
that our weak nature needed the succour and
salvation which is from Him. And as a wise
architect, proposing to build a house, consults
also about repairing it, should it at any time
become dilapidated after building, and, as
counselling about this, makes preparation and
gives to the workmen materials for a repair ;
and thus the means of the repair are provided
before the house ; in the same way prior to
us is the repair of our salvation founded in
Christ, that in Him we might even be new-
created. And the will and the purpose were
made ready ' before the world,' but have taken
effect when the need required, and the Saviour
came among us. For the Lord Himself will
stand us in place of all things in the heavens,
when He receives us into everlasting life.
This then suffices to prove that the Word
of God is not a creature, but that the sense
of the passage is rights. But since that
2 The Catholic doctrine seems to be, that Adam innocent was
mortal, yet would not in fact have died ; that he had no principle
of eternal life within him, but was sustained continually by divine
power, till such time as immortality should have been given him.
vid. Incam^. Cf. Augustine, depecc. mer. i. 3. Gen. ad lit. vi.
20. Pope Pius V. condemned the assertion of Baius, Immortalitas
primi hominis non erat gratiae beneficium sed naturalis conditio.
His decision of course is here referred to only historically.
3 Cf. 31. n. 8. 4 74, n. 5. 5 § 44, n. i.
passage, when scrutinized, has a right sense
in every point of view, it may be well
to state what it is ; perhaps many words
may bring these senseless men to shame.
Now here I must recur to what has been
said before, for what I have to say relates
to the same proverb and the same Wis-
dom. The Word has not called Himself
a creature by nature, but has said in proverbs,
'The Lord created me;' and He plainly indi-
cates a sense not spoken 'plainly' but latent^,
such as we shall be able to find by taking
away the veil from the proverb. For who, on
hearing from the Framing Wisdom, ' The Lord
created me a beginning of His ways,' does
not at once question the meaning, reflecting
how that creative Wisdom can be created?
who on hearing the Only-begotten Son of God
say, that He was created ' a beginning of
ways,' does not investigate the sense, wonder-
ing how the Only-begotten Son can become
a Beginning of many others ? for it is a dark
saying? ; but ' a man of understanding,' saya
he, ' shall understand a proverb and the inter-
pretation, the words of the wise and their dark
sayings^.'
78. Now the Only-begotten and very Wis-
dom^ of God is Creator and Framer of all
things; for 'in Wisdom hast Thou made them
all 2,' he says, and 'the earth is full of Thy
creation.' But that what came into being
might not only be, but be goods, it pleased
God that His own Wisdoin should condescend ^
to the creatures, so as to introduce an impress
and semblance of Its Image on all in common
and on each, that what was made might be
manifestly wise works and worthy of God s.
For as of the Son of God, considered as the
Word, our word is an image, so of the same
Son considered as Wisdom is the wisdom
which is implanted in us an image ; in which
wisdom we, having the power of knowledge
and thought, become recipients of the All-
framing Wisdom ; and through It we are able
to know Its Father. ' For he who hath the
Son,' saith He, '.hath the Father also ; ' and
'he that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that
sent Me^.' Such an impress then of Wisdom
being created in us, and being in all the works,
with reason does the true and framing Wisdom
take to Itself what belongs to its own impress,
and say, ' The Lord created me for His
works ; ' for what the wisdom in us says, that
6 Cf. 73, n. 2. and refF.
7 olvtyma, supr. i. 41, n. 9. 8 Prov. i. Si 6.
' avTO<To<f>Ca vid. zk/V. note on iv. 2. ' Ps. civ. 24. Sept.
3 su^r. de Deer. 19, n. 3. 4 Cf. 64, notes 2 and 5.
5 Didymus argues in favour of interpreting the passage of
created wisdom at length, Trin. iii. 3. He says that the context
makes this interpretation necessary.
* I John ii. 23 ; Matt. x. 40.
DISCOURSE II.
391
the Lord Himself speaks as if it were His
own ; and, whereas He is not Himself created,
being Creator, yet because of the image of
Him created in the works?, He says this as if
of Himself. And as the Lord Himself has
said, ' He that receiveth you, receiveth Me^,'
because His impress is in us, so, though He
be not among the creatures, yet because His
image and impress is created in the works,
He says, as if in His own person, ' The Lord
created me a beginning of His ways for His
works.' And therefore has this impress of
Wisdom in the works been brought into being,
that, as I said before, the world might re-
cognise in it its own Creator the Word, and
through Him the Father. And this is what
Paul said, ' Because that which may be known
of God is manifest in them, for God has
shewed it unto them : for the invisible things
of Him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made 9.' But if so, the Word is
not a creature in essence '° ; but the wisdom
which is in us and so called, is spoken of in
this passage in the Proverbs.
79. But if this too fails to persuade them,
let them tell us themselves, whether there is
any wisdom in the creatures or not ^ ? If not,
how is it that the Aposde complains, ' For
after that in the Wisdom of God the world by
wisdom knew not God^?' or how is it if there
is no wisdom, that a ' multitude of wise men3 '
are found in Scripture ? for ' a wise man feareth
and departeth from evil 4;' and 'through wis-
dom is a house budded s;' and the Preacher
says, 'A man's wisdom maketh his face to
shine;' and he blames those who are head-
strong thus, ' Say not thou, what is the cause
that the former days were better than these?
for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning
this ^' But if, as the Son of Sirach says, ' He
poured her out upon all His works ; she is
with all flesh according to His gift, and He
hath given her to them that love Him ?,' and
this outpouring is a note, not of the Essence
of the Very ^ Wisdom and Only-begotten, but
of that wisdom which is imaged in the world,
how is it incredible that the All-framing and
true Wisdom Itself, whose impress is the
wisdom and knowledge poured out in the
7 Athan. here considers wisdom as the image of the Creator
in the Universe. He explains it of the Church, de Incarn.
contr. Ar. 6. if it be his [but see Prolegg. ch. iii. § i (36)];
(and so Didym. Trin. iii. 3 fin.) Cf. Jerome, in Efh. iv. 23, 24.
Naz. Orat. 30, 2. Epiphanius says, ' Scripture has nowhere
confirmed this passage (Prov. viii. 22), nor has any Apostle re-
ferred it to Christ.' (vid. also Basil, contr. Eunotn. ii. 20.) Har.
69. pp. 743 — •-•45. He proceeds to shew how it may apply to Him.
** Matt. X. 40. 9 Rom. i. 19, 20. '° Cf. 45, n. 2.
I Vid. Epiph. H(Br. 69. ^ i Cor. i. 21.
3 Vid. Wisd. vi. 24. 4 Prov. xiv. 16. 5 lb. xxiv.
6 Eccles. viii. i ; vii. 10. 7 Ecclus. i. 9, 10.
8 Cf 78, n. 1.
world, should say, as I have already explained,
as if of Itself, 'The Lord created me for
His works ?' For the wisdom in the world is
not creative, but is that which is created in
the works, according to which ' the heavens
declare the glory of God, and the firmament
sheweth His handywork9.' This if men have
within them ^°, they will acknowledge the true
Wisdom of God ; and will know that they are
made really " after God's Image. And, as
some son of a king, when the father wished to
build a city '% might cause his own name to
be printed upon each of the works that were
rising, both to give security to them of the
works remaining, by reason of the show of his
name on everything, and also to make thern
remember him and his father from the name,
and having finished the city might be asked
concerning it, how it was made, and then
would answer, ' It is made securely, for ac-
cording to the will of my father, I am imaged
in each work, for my name was made in
the works;' but saying this, he does not
signify that his own essence is created, but
the impress of himself by means of his
name ; in the same manner, to apply the
illustration, to those who admire the wisdom
in the creatures, the true Wisdom makes
answer, ' The Lord created me for the works,'
for my impress is in them ; and I have
thus condescended for the framing of all
things.
80. Moreover, that the Son should be
speaking of the impress that is within us as if
it were Himself, should not startle any one,
considering (for we must not shrink from repe-
tition ^) that, when Saul was persecuting the
Church, in which was His impress and image.
He said, as if He were Himself under perse-
cution, ' Saul, why persecutest thou Me ^ ? '
Therefore (as has been said), as, supposing
the impress itself of Wisdom which is in
the works had said, ' The Lord created me
for the works,' no one would have been
startled, so, if He, the True and Framing
Wisdom, the Only-begotten Word of God,
should use what belongs to His image as
about Himself, namely, ' The Lord crea-
ted me for the works,' let no one, over-
looking the wisdom created in the world and
9 Ps. xix. I.
10 Cf. cotitr. Gent. 2, 30, 40, &c. vid. also Basil, de Sp. S. n. 19.
Cyril, in Joan. p. 75.
" De Deer. 31, n. 5. ., . ,
12 This is drawn out somewhat differently, and very strikingly
in contr. Gent. 43. The Word indeed is regarded more as the
Governor than the Life of the world, but shortly before he spoke
of the Word as the Principle of permanence. 41 fin.
I TO awTO -yap Aeyeii/ oii/c oKVTyiiov : where Petavius, de Tnn.^
ii. I. § 8. ingeniously but without any authority reads ovk okvcI
Oeov. It is quite a peculiarity 01 Athan. to repeat and to apolo-
gize for doing so. The very same words occur S7i/r. 22, c. Or^r.
iii. 54, a. Scrap, i. 19, b. 27, e. Vid. also 2, c. 41, d. 67, a. 69, b. iii.
39 init. vid. especially sufr. p. 47, note 6. * Acts ix. 4.
392
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
fin the works, think that ' He created ' is said
,©f the Substance of the Very 3 Wisdom, lest,
diluting the wine with water 3^, he be judged
a defrauder of the truth. For It is Crea-
tive and Framer ; but Its impress is crea-
ted in the works, as the copy of the image.
And He says, 'Beginning of ways,' since
such wisdom becomes a sort of beginning,
and, as it were, rudiments of the knowledge of
God ; for a man entering, as it were, upon this
way first, and keeping it in the fear of God (as
Solomon says 4, ' The fear of the Lord is the
beginning of wisdom '), then advancing upwards
in his thoughts and perceiving the Framing
Wisdom which is in the creation, will perceive
in It also Its Fathers, as the Lord Himself
has said, ' He that hath seen Me, hath seen
the Father,' and as John writes, ' He who
acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father
also ^.' And He says, ' Before the world He
founded me 7,' since in Its impress the works
remain settled and eternal. Then, lest any,
hearing concerning the wisdom thus created
in the works, should think the true Wisdom,
God's Son, to be by nature a creature. He has
found it necessary to add, ' Before the moun
tains, and before the earth, and before the
waters, and before all hills He begets me,'
that in saying, ' before every creature ' (for He
includes all the creation under these heads).
He may shew that He is not created together
with the works according to Essence. For
if He was created ' for the works,' yet is before
them, it follows that He is in being before He
was created. He is not then a creature by
nature and essence, but as He Himself has
added, an Offspring. But in what differs a
creature from an offspring, and how it is
distinct by nature, has been shewn in what
has gone before.
8i. But since He proceeds to say, 'When
He prepared the heaven, I was present with
Him^,' we ought to know that He says not
this as if without Wisdom the Father prepared
the heaven or the clouds above (for there is no
room to doubt that all things are created in
Wisdom, and without It was made not even
one' thing); but this is what He says, 'AH
things took place in Me and through Me, and
when there was need that Wisdom should be
created in the works, in My Essence indeed
I was with the Father, but by a condescension ^
3 Cf. above, 79, n. 8.
3a Isa. i. 22. Infr. iii. 35. Ep. Mg. % 17. Ambros. de Fid. iii.
05- P- '^7- "Ote 4. 4 Prov. i. 7, LXX.
5 The whole of this passage might be illustrated at great length
from the ««^/-. Ge?it. and the htcarn. V. D. vid. sufr. notes on 79
t-f. c. Cent. 34, and Incam. 11, 41, 42, &c. Vid. also Basil.
soni7: Eu7wni. \\. 16.
6 Johnxiv. 9; I John ii. 23. and so Cyril in Joan: -a. 864. vid.
Wetstem tn loc. 7 Vid. Prov. viii. 24—26. 8 Ibrviii. 27.
' John . 3. '
2 Here again the o-vyKarajSao-is has no reference whatever to a
to things originate, I was disposing over the
works My own impress, so that the whole
world as being in one body, might not be at
variance but in concord with itself All those
then who with an upright understanding, ac-
cording to the wisdom given unto them, come
to contemplate the creatures, are able to say
for themselves, * By Thy appointment all things
continue 3 ; ' but they who make light of this
must be told, ' Professing themselves to be
wise, they became fools ;' for ' that which may
be known of God is manifest in them ; for
God has revealed it unto them ; for the in-
visible things of Him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being perceived by
the things that are made, even His eternal
Power and Godhead, so that they are with-
out excuse. Because that when they knew
God, they glorified Him not as God, but
served the creature more than the Creator
of all, who is blessed for ever. Amen 4.'
And they will surely be shamed at hearing,
' For, after that in the wisdom of God (in
the mode we have explained above), the
world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased
God by the foolishness of the preaching to save
them that believes.' For no longer, as in the
former times, God has willed to be known by
an image and shadow of wisdom, that namely
which is in the creatures, but He has made
the true Wisdom Itself to take flesh, and to
become man, and to undergo the death of the
cross ; that by the faith in Him, henceforth all
that believe may obtain salvation. However,
it is the same Wisdom of God, which through
Its own Image in the creatures (whence also
It is said to be created), first manifested Itself,
and through Itself Its own Father ; and after-
wards, being Itself the Word, has ' become
flesh ^,' as John says, and after abolishing
death and saving our race, still more revealed
Himself and through Him His own Father,
saying, ' Grant unto them that they may know
Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ
whom Thou hast sent?.'
82. Hence the whole earth is fiUed with the
knowledge of Him ; for the knowledge of
Father through Son and of Son from Father is
one and the same, and the Father delights in
Him, and in the same joy the Son rejcices in
the Father, saying, * I was by Him, daily His
delight, rejoicing always before Him ^' And
this again proves that the Son is not foreign,
but proper to the Father's Essence. For
behold, not because of us has He come to be,
figurative •yeVi/ijcrts, as Bishop Bull contends, but to His impressing
the image of Wisdom on the works, or what He above calls the
Son's image, on which account He is irpiaroTOKOs.
3 Vid. Ps. cxix. 91. 4 Rom. i. 19 — 25. 5 i Cor. i. 21.
6 John i. 14. 7 Vid. ib. xvii. 3. i Prov. viii. 30.
DISCOURSE III.
393
as the irreligious men say, nor is He out of
nothing (for not from without did God pro-
cure for Himself a cause of rejoicing), but the
words denote what is His own and like. When
then was it, when the Father rejoiced not?
but if He ever rejoiced. He was ever, in whom
He rejoiced. And in whom does the Father
rejoice, except as seeing Himself in His own
Image, which is His Word ? And though in
sons of men also He had delight, on finishing
the world, as it is written in these same
Proverbs^, yet this too has a consistent sense.
For even thus He had delight, not because joy
was added to Him, but again on seeing the
works made after His own Image ; so that
even this rejoicing of God is on account of
His Image. And how too has the Son dehght,
except as seeing Himself in the Father ? for
this is the same as saying, ' He that hath seen
Me, hath seen the Father,' and 'I am in the
* Prov. viii. 31.
Father and the Father in Me 3.' Vain then is
your vaunt as is on all sides shewn, O Christ's
enemies, and vainly did ye parade'* and cir-
culate everywhere your text, ' The Lord crea-
ted me a beginning of His ways,' per-
verting its sense, and publishing, not Solo-
mon's meaning, but your own comment s. For
behold your sense is proved to be but a" fan-
tasy ; but the passage in the Proverbs, as well
as all that is above said, proves that the Son
is not a creature in nature and essence, but
the proper Offspring of the Father, true Wis-
dom and Word, by whom ' all things were
made,' and ' without Him was made not one
thing fi.'
3 John xiv. 9, 10.
4 eveiroixirevcraTe. 'The ancients said n-ojarrevetv "to use bad
language," and the coarse language of the procession, Trofun-ei'a.
This arose from the custom of persons in the Bacchanalian cars
using bad language towards by-standers, and their retorting it.'
Erasm. Adag. p. 1158. He quotes Menander,
cttI TUi' ana§C>v eicrl Trojuiretot Tives
<r</>d5pa AotSopoi.
5 Siivoiav, iirCvoiav, su^r. Or, i. 52, n. 7. * John i. 3.
DISCOURSE III.
CHAPTER XXIII.
Texts Explained ; Seventhly,
John xiv. lo.
Introduction. The doctrine of the coinherence. The
Father and the Son Each whole and perfect God.
They are in Each Other, because their Essence is
One and the Same. They are Each Perfect and
have One Essence, because the Second Person is
the Son of the First. Asterius's evasive explanation
of the text under review ; refuted. Since the Son
has all that the Father has, He is His Image ; and
the Father is the One God, because the Son is in the
Father.
I. The Ario-maniacs, as it appears, having
once made up their minds to transgress and
revolt from the Truth, are strenuous in ap-
propriating the words of Scripture, ' When the
impious Cometh into a depth of evils, he de-
spiseth ^ ; ' for refutation does not stop them,
nor perplexity abash them ; but, as having ' a
whore's forehead,' they ' refuse to be ashamed = '
before all men in their irreligion. For whereas
the passages which they alleged, 'The Lord
created me 3,' and * Made better than the
Angels 4, ' and ' First-born s, ' and ' Faithful
to Him that made HiraV I^a-ve a right
sense 7, and inculcate religiousness towards
Christ, so it is that these men still, as if be-
» Prov. xviii. 3, LXX. » Jer. iii. 3. 3 Supr. ch. xix.
4 Ch. xiii. 5 Ch. xxi. 6 Ch. xiv. 7 ii. 44, n. i.
dewed with the serpent's poison, not seeing
what they ought to see, nor understanding
what they read, as if in vomit from the depth
of their irreligious heart, have next proceeded
to disparage our Lord's words, ' I in the
Father and the Father in Me ^ ; ' saying, * How
can the One be contained in the Other and
the Other in the One ? ' or ' How at all can the
Father who is the greater be contained in the
Son who is the less ? ' or ' What wonder, if the
Son is in the Father, considering it is written
even of us, ' In Him we live and move and
have our being 9 ? ' And this state of mind is
consistent with their perverseness, who think
God to be material, and understand not what
8 John xiv. lo.
9 Acts xvii. 28. Vid. supr. ii. 41, note it. The doctrine of the
Trepix^picts, which this ol^ection introduces, is the test of ortho-
doxy opposed to Arianism. Cf. de Syn. 15, n. 4. This is seen
clearly in the case of Eusebius, whose language approaches to
Catholic more nearly than Arians in general. After all his strong
assertions, the question recurs, is our Lord a distinct being from
God, as we are, or not? he answers in the affirmative, vid. supr,
p. 75, n. 7, whereas we believe that He is literally and nu-
merically one with the Father, and therefore His Person dwells
in the Father's Person by an ineffable union. And hence the
language of Dionysius [of Rome] siipr. de Deer. 26. ' the Holy
Ghost must repose and habitate in God,' k\i-^i.Ko\iap^Xv tm de<a Kai
ii/SiMTaa-Bai.. And hence the strong figure of S. Jerome (in which
he is followed by S. Cyril, T/tesaur. p. 51), ' Filiiis locus est
Patris, sicut et Pater locus est Filii.' in Ezek. iii. 12. So
Athan. contrasts the creatures who are ev /iie;iicpi(r^ieVots roirot?
and the Son. Strap, iii. 4. Cf. even in the Macrostich Creed,
language of this character, viz. 'AH the Father embosoming the
Son, and all the Spn hanging and adhering to the Father, and
alone resting on the Father's breast continually.' De Syn. 26 (7),
where vid. note 3.
394
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
is 'True Father' and 'True Son,' nor 'Light
Invisible' and 'Eternal,' and Its 'Radiance
Invisible,' nor ' Invisible Subsistence,' and ' Im-
material Expression ' and ' Immaterial Image.'
For did they know, they would not dis-
honour and ridicule the Lord of glory, nor
interpreting things immaterial after a material
manner, pervert good words. It were suffi-
cient indeed, on hearing only words which are
the Lord's, at once to believe, since the faith
of simplicity is better than an elaborate pro-
cess of persuasion ; but since they have en-
deavoured to profane even this passage to
their own heresy, it becomes necessary to
expose their perverseness and to shew the
mind of the truth, at least for the security of
the faithful. For when it is said, 'I in the
Father and the Father in Me,' They are not
therefore, as these suppose, discharged into
Each Other, filling the One the Other, as in
the case of empty vessels, so that the Son fills
the emptiness of the Father and the Father
that of the Son ^°, and Each of Them by Him-
self is not complete and perfect (for this is
proper to bodies, and therefore the mere as-
sertion of it is full of irreligion), for the Father
is full and perfect, and the Son is the Fulness
of Godhead. Nor again, as God, by coming
into the Saints, strengthens them, thus is He
also in the Son. For He is Himself the
Father's Power and Wisdom, and by partaking
of Him things originate are sanctified in the
Spirit ; but the Son Himself is not Son by
participation, but is the Father's own Off-
spring".' Nor again is the Son in the Father,
in the sense of the passage, ' In Him we live
and move and have our being;' for. He as
being from the Fount " of the Father is the
Life, in which all things are both quickened
and consist ; for the Life does not live in life ^3,
»> This is not inconsistent with S. Jerome as quoted in the
foregoing note. Athan. merely means that such ilhistrations
cannot be taken literally, as if spoken of natural subjects.
The Father is the rdwos or locus of the Son, because when
we contemplate the Son in His fulness as oAos 6eos, we merely
view the Father as that Person in whom God the Son is ; our mind
abstracts His Essence which is the Son for the moment from
Him, and regards Him merely as Father. Thus in Illud. Omn.
4, suj/r. p. 89. It is, however, but an operation of the mind, and not
a real emptying of Godhead from the Father, if such words may be
used. Father and Son are both the same God, though really and
eternally distinct froni each other; and Each is full of the Other,
that is, their Essence is one and the same. This is insisted on by
5. Cyril, in Joan. p. 28. And byS. Hilary, Trin. vii. fin. vid. also
iii. 23. Cf. the quotation from S. Anselm made by Petavius,
de Trin. iv. 16 fin. [Cf. D.C.B. s.v. Metangismonitae.]
II Vid. de Deer. 10, n. 4, 19, n. 3; Or, i. 15, n. 6. On the
other hand_ Eusebius considers the Son, like a creature, ef avTijs
T^s TrarpiK^s [not ov<rias, but] fierovo-ias, iixrvep ano TnjyTJ;, eV
avTov irpox^oix.iint^ Tr\r]povn.evov. Eccl. Theol. i. 2. words which
are the more observable, the nearer they approach to the language
of Athan. in the text and elsewhere. Vid. infr. by way of con-
trast, ovhi Kara ix-erovaCav avTov, aAA' oAof ifiiov aiiToO yevvrnxa. 4,
«2 £>e Deer. 15, n. 9. 1 ii~ -,
13 i.e. Son does not live by the gift of life, for He is life, and
does but give it. not receive. S. Hilary uses different language
with the same meaning, de Trin. ii. 11. Qthv modes of expres-
sion for the same mystery are found infr. 3. also 6 fin. Vid. de
•5>«- 45i n- !• and Didymus t) TraTpixri eeoTrjs. p. 82. and S. Basil,
else it would not be Life, but rather He gives
life to all things.
2. But now let us see what Asterius the
Sophist says, the retained pleader^ for the
heresy. In imitation then of the Jews so far,
he writes as follows ; ' It is Ivery plain that He
has said, that He is in the Father and the
Father again in Him, for this reason, that
neither the word on which He was discoursing
is, as He says, His own, but the Father's, nor
the works belong to Him, but to the Father
who gave Him the power.' Now this, if
uttered at random by a little child, had been
excused from his age ; but when one who
bears the title of Sophist, and professes uni-
versal knowledge 2, is the writer, what a serious
condemnation does he deserve ! And does he
not shew himself a stranger to the Apostle 3,.
as being puffed up with persuasive words of
wisdom, and thinking thereby to succeed in
deceiving, not understanding himself what he
says nor whereof he affirms + ? For what the
Son has said as proper and suitable to a Son
only, who is Word and Wisdom and Image of
the Father's Essence, that he levels to all
the creatures, and makes common to the Son
and to them ; and he says, lawless s man, that
the Power of the Father receives power, that
from this his irreligion it may follow to say
that in a son^ the Son was made a son, and
the Word received a word's authority; and^
far from granting that He spoke this as a Son^
He ranks Him with all things made as having
learned it as they have. For if the Son said,
' I am in the Father and the Father in Me,'
because His discourses were not His own
words but the Father's, and so of His works,
then, — since David says, ' I will hear what the
Lord God shall say in me?,' and again Solo-
mon ^, ' My words are spoken by God,' and
since Moses was minister of words which were
from God, and each of the Prophets spoke not
what was his own but what was from God,
' Thus saith the Lord,' and since the works of
the Saints, as they professed, were not their
own but God's who gave the power, Elijah for
instance and Elisha invoking God that He
Himself would raise the dead, and EHsha
saying to Naaman, on cleansing him from the
£^ ov exfi TO elvai. contr. Eunom, ii. 12 fin. Just above Athan.
says that ' the Son is the fulness of the Godhead.' Thus the
Father is the Son's life because the Son is from Him, and the
Son the Father's because the Son is in Him. All these are but
different ways of signifying the jrepiX"'PT)<ns.
' <rvvT)y6pov, infr, § 60.
* ■na.vTo. yiviiio-Keiv eTrayyeAAo/uei'os. Gorgias, according to
Cicero de fin. ii. init. was tlie first who ventured in public to say
TTpo^aAAere, ' give me a question.' This was the eTrayyeA^a of the
Sophists ; of which Aristotle speaks. Rhet.a..z^^Xi. Vid. Cressol.
Theatr, Rhet. iii. ii.
3 I Cor. ii. 4. 4 I Tim. i. 7.
5 Ttapdvofj-os. infr. 47, c. Hist. Ar. 71, 75, 79. E^. yEg. 16, cL
Vid. avo;u,os. 2 Thess. ii. 8.
6 iv iiiu), but iv Tcp uioj. Ep. J^g. 14 fin vid. Or ii. 22, note 2.
7 Ps. Ixxxv. 8, LXX. 8 I Kings viii. 59, or x. 24 ?
DISCOURSE III.
395
leprosy, ' that thou mayest know that there is
a God in Israel 9,' and Samuel too in the days
of the harvest praying to God to grant rain,
and the Apostles saying that not in their own
power they did miracles but in the Lord's
grace — it is plain that, according to Asterius,
such a statement must be common to all, so
that each of them is able to say, 'I in the
Father and the Father in me ; ' and as a con-
sequence that He is no longer one Son of God
and Word and Wisdom, but, as others, is only
one out of many.
3. But if the Lord said this, His words
would not rightly have been, ' I in the Father
and the Father in Me,' but rather, ' I too am
in the Father, and the Father is in Me too,'
that He may have nothing of His own and by
prerogative \ relatively to the Father, as a Son,
but the same grace in common with all. But
it is not so, as they think ; for not understand-
ing that He is genuine Son from the Father,
they belie Him who is such, whom alone it
befits to say, ' I in the Father and the Father
in Me.' For the Son is in the Father, as it is
allowed us to know, because the whole Being
of the Son is proper to the Father's essence^
as radiance from light, and stream from foun-
tain ; so that whoso sees the Son, sees what is
proper to the Father, and knows that the Son's
Being, because from the Father, is therefore in
the Father. For the Father is in the Son,
since the Son is what is from the Father and
proper to Him, as in the radiance the sun,
and in the word the thought, and in the
stream the fountain : for whoso thus contem-
plates the Son, contemplates Avhat is proper to
the Father's Essence, and knows that the
Father is in the Son. For whereas the Form 3
and Godhead of the Father is the Being of the
Son, it follows that the Son is in the Father
and the Father in the Son +.
4. On this account and reasonably, having
9 2 Kings V. 8, 15. I Or. ii. 19, n. 6.
= Since the Father and the Son are the numerically One God, it
IS but expressing this in other words to say that the Father is in
the Son and the Son in the Father, lor all They have and all They
are is common to Each, excepting Their being Father and Son. A
7reptx(ipT)o-is of Persons is implied in the Unity of Essence. This
is the connexion of the two texts so often quoted ; ' the Son is in
the Father and the Father in the Son,' because ' the Son and the
Father are one.' And the cause of this unity and 7reptxu)pij<Tis
is the Divine yivviQcn?. Thus S. Hilary, THn. ii. 4. vid. Or.
ii. 33, _n. 1. . , , ,
3 eXSovs. Petavius here prefers the reading iSiov ; Seonjs and
TO 'iSiov occur together infr. 6. and 56. el6os occurs Orat. i. 20,
a. de Syn. 52. vid. de Syn. 52, n. 6. infr. 6, 16, Ep. jEg. i-j,
contr. Sabell. Greg. 8, c. 12, vid. infr. §§ 6, 16, notes.
4 In accordance with § i, note 10, Thomassin observes that by
the mutual coinherence or indwelling of the Three Blessed Persons
is meant ' not a commingling as of material liquids, nor as of soul
with body, nor as the union of our Lord's Godhead and humanity,
but it is such that the whole power, life, substance, wisdom,
essiCL.ce, of the Father, should be the very essence, substance,
wisdom, life, and power of the Son.' de Trin. xxviii. i. S. Cyril
adopts Athan.'s laiiguage to express this doctrine in yoan. p. 105.
de Trin. vi. p. 621, in Joan. p. 168. Vid. infr. tovtoths oircriat,
21. TrarptKTj QeoTqi; toO viou, 26. and 41. and de Syn. 45, n. i.
vid. also Damasc. f. O. i. 8. pp. 139, 140.
said before, 'I and the Father are One,' He
added, ' I in the Father and the Father in
Me,5 ' by way of shewing the identity ^ of God-
head and the unity of Essence. For they
are one, not? as one thing divided into two
parts, and these nothing but one, nor as one
thing twice named, so that the Same becomes
at one time Father, at another His own Son,
for this Sabellius holding was judged an here-
tic. But They are two, because the Father is
Father and is not also Son, and the Son is
Son and not also Father ^ ; but the nature is
one ; (for the offspring is not unlike 9 its parent,
for it is his image), and all that is the Father's,
is the Son's '°. Wherefore neither is the Son
another God, for He was not procured from
without, else were there many, if a godhead be
procured foreign from the Father's ' ; for if the
Son be other, as an Offspring, still He is the
Same as God ; and He and the Father are one
in propriety and peculiarity of nature, and in the
identity of the one Godhead, as has been said.
For the radiance also is light, not second to
the sun, nor a different light, nor from par-
ticipation of it, but a whole and proper off-
spring of it. And such an offspring is neces-
sarily one light ; and no one would say that
they are two lights % but sun and radiance two,
yet one the light from the sun enlightening in
its radiance all things. So also the Godhead
of tlie Son is the Father's ; whence also it is
indivisible ; and thus there is one God and
none other but He. And so, since they are
one, and the Godhead itself one, the same
things are said of the Son, which are said of
the Father, except His being said to be Fa-
ther 3 : — for instance % that He is God, ' And
the Word was GodSj' Almighty, 'Thus saith
He which was and is and is to come, the Al-
mighty^;' Lord, 'One Lord Jesus Christ?;'
that He is Light, 'I am the Light ^;' that He
wipes out sins, ' that ye may know,' He says,
' that the Son of man hath power upon earth
to forgive sins9;' and so with other attributes.
For ' all things,' says the Son Himself, ' what-
soever the Father hath, are Mine'°;' and
again, ' And Mine are Thine.'
5. And on hearing the attributes of the
Father spoken of a Son, we shall thereby see
the Father in the Son; and we shall con-
template the Son in the Father, when what is
said of the Son is said of the Father also.
5 John X. 3a ^ £>e Syn. 45, n. I. 7 Infr. Orat. iv. 9.
8 Infr. II.
9 avd/xotoi/ ; and so avdiaoios (caTo navTa. Orat. i. 6. (car' ovaiav.
17. Orat. ii. 43. Tiijs ov<ria?. infr. 14. vid. avofioionis. infr. 8, c.
'o Cf. in illud. Omn. 4. ' As the Father is I am (6 uii') so His
Word is I Am and God over all.' Serap. i. 28, a ; ib. ii. 2.
» Cf. i. 6. * Doctrine of the Una Res, de Syn. 45, n. i.
3 Ib. 49, n. 4. 4 Parallel to de Syn. 49. 5 John L i.
6 Rev. i. 8. 7 I Cor. viii. 6. ^ John viii. 12.
9 Luke V. 24. "> John xvi. 15 ; xvii. lo.
396
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
And why are the attributes of the Father
ascribed to the Son, except that the Son is an
Offspring from Him? and why are the Son's
attributes proper to the Father, except again
because the Son is the proper Offspring of
His Essence? And the Son, being the proper
Offspring of the Father's Essence, reasonably
says that the Father's attributes are His own
also; whence suitably and consistently with
saying, 'I and the Father are One,' He adds,
'that ye may know that I am in the Father
and the Father in Me^' Moreover, He has
added this again, 'He that hath seen Me,
hath seen the Father^;' and there is one and
the same sense in these threes passages. For
he who in this sense understands that the Son
and the Father are one, knows that He is in
the Father and the Father in the Son ; for the
Godhead of the Son is the Father's, and it is
in the Son ; and whoso enters into this, is
convinced that 'He that hath seen the Son,
hath seen the Father;' for in the Son is con-
templated the Father's Godhead. And we
may perceive this at once from the illustration
of the Emperor's image. For in the image is
the shape and form of the Emperor, and in the
Emperor is that shape which is in the image.
For the likeness of the Emperor in the image
is exact 4; so that a person who looks at
the image, sees in it the Emperor; and he
again who sees the Erhperor, recognises that
it is he who is in the image s. And from the
likeness not differing, to one who after the
image wished to view the Emperor, the image
might say, *I and the Emperor are one; for
I am in him, and he in me; and what thou
seest in me, that thou beholdest in him, and
what thou hast seen in him, that thou be-
holdest in me^.' Accordingly he who wor-
* John X. 30, 38 ; xiv. 10. ' lb. xiv. 9.
3 Here these three texts, which so often occur together, are
recognized as 'three;' so are they by Eusebius £cc/. Tkeol. iii.
19 ; and he says that Marcellus and ' those who Sabellianbe with
him,' among whom he included Catholics, were in the practice
of adducing them, epuAAouvTes ; which bears incidental testimony
to the fact that the doctrine of the jreptx'^PI'ris was the great
criterion between orthodox and Arian. Many instances of the
joint use of the three are given supr. i. 34, n. 7. to which may be
added Orat. ii. 54 init. iii. 16 fin. 67 fin. iv. 17, a. Serap. ii. 9, c.
Serm. Maj. de fid. 2g. Cyril, de Trin. p. 554. in Joann. p. 168.
Origen Periarch. p. 56. Hil. Tri7i. ix. i. Ambros. Hexaetn. 6.
August, de Cons. Ev. i. 7. 4 aTrapaAAa/cTOs, de Syn. 23, n. i.
5 Vid. Basil. Horn, contr. Sab. p. 192. The honour paid to the
Imperial Statues is well known. Ambros. in Psalm cxviii. x. 25.
vid. also Chrysost. Horn, on Statues, passim, fragnt. in Act. Cone.
vii. (t. 4, p. 89. Hard.) Socr. vi. 18. The Seventh Council speaks
of the images sent by the Emperors into provinces instead of
their coming in person; Ducange in v. Lauratum. Vid. a de-
scription of the imperial statutes and their honours in Gothofred,
Cod. Tlieod, t. 5, pp. 346, 7. and in Philostorg. xii. 12. vid. also
Molanus de Imaginibus ed. Paquot, p. 197.
6 Athanasius guards against what is defective in this illustration
in the next chapter, but independent of such explanation a mistake
as to his meaning would be impossible ; and the passage affords
a good instance of the imperfect and partial character of all illus-
tration ; of the Divine Mystery. What it is taken to symbolize
is the unity of the Father and Son, for the Image is not a Second
Emperor but the same. vid. Sabell. Greg. 6. But no one, who
bowed before the Emperor's Statue can be supposed to have really
worshipped it; whereas our Lord is the Object of supreme wor-
ship, which terminates in Him, as being really one with Him
ships the image, in it worships the Emperor
also; for the image is his form and appearance.
Since then the Son too is the Father's Image,
it must necessarily be understood that the
Godhead and propriety of the Father is the
Being of the Son.
6. And this is what is said, 'Wlio being
in the form of God %' and ' the Father in Me.'
Nor is this Form^ of the Godhead partial
merely, but the fulness of the Father's God-
head is the Being of the Son, and the Son
is whole God. Therefore also, being equal to
God, He ' thought it not a prize to be equal
to God;' and again since the Godhead and
the Form of the Son is none other's than the
Father's 3, this is what He says, 'I in the
Father.' Thus 'God was in Christ recon-
ciling the world unto Himself'*;' for the pro-
priety of the Father's Essence is that Son,
in whom the creation was then reconciled
with God. Thus what things the Son then
wrought are the Father's works, for the Son
is the Form of that Godhead of the Father,
which wrought the works. And thus he who
looks at the Son, sees the Father; for in the
Father's Godhead is and is contemplated the
Son ; and the Father's Form which is in Him
shews in Him the Father ; and thus the Father
is in the Son. And that propriety and God-
head which is from the Father in the Son,
shews the Son in the Father, and His insepar-
ability from Him ; and whoso hears and be-
holds that what is said of the Father is also
said of the Son, not as accruing to His Es-
sence by grace or participation, but because
the very Being of the Son is the proper Off-
spring of the Father's Essence, will fitly
understand the words, as I said before, ' I in
the Father, and the Father in Me;' and 'I
and the Father are One s.' For the Son is
such as the Father is, because He has all
that is the Father's. Wherefore also is He
implied together with the Father. For, a son
not being, one cannot say father ; whereas
when we call God a Maker, we do not of
necessity intimate the things which have come
to be j for a maker is before his works ^
whose Image He is. From the custom of paying honour to the
Imperial Statues, the Cultus Imaginum was introduced into the
Eastern Church. The Western Church, not having had the civil
custom, resisted, vid. Dolhnger, Church History, vol. 3. p. 55.
E. Tr. The Fathers, e.g. S. Jerome, set themselves against the
civil custom, as idolatrous, comparing it to that paid to Nebuchad-
nezzar's statue, vid. Hieron. in Dan. iii. i8. Incense was burnt
before those of the Emperors ; as afterwards before the Images
of the Saints.
' Phil. ii. 6. " il^o^, vid. infr. 16, note.
3 Here fiirst the Son's cTSo; is the el6os of the Father, then the
Son is the eTSos of the Father's Godhead, and then in the Son
is the e\ho% of the Father. These expressions are equivalent, if
Father and Son are, each separately, oAo? Seos. vid. infr. § 16,
note. S. Greg. Naz. uses the word OTrtaSia (E.\od. xxxiii. 23),
which forms a contrast to elSos, for the Divine Works. Orat. 28, 3.
4 2 Cor. V. 19. S John xiv. 10; x. 30.
6 Vid. supr. de Deer. 30 ; Or. i. 33. This is in opposition to
the Arians, who said that the title Father implied priority of ex-
DISCOURSE III.
397
But when we call God Father, at once with
the Father we signify the Son's existence.
Therefore also he who believes in the Son,
believes also in the Father: for he beheves
in what is proper to the Father's Essence;
and thus the faith is one in one God. And
he who worships and honours the Son, in the
Son worships and honours the Father; for
one is the Godhead; and therefore one 7 the
honour and one the worship which is paid
to the Father in and through the Son. And
he who thus worships, worships one God;
for there is one God and none other than He.
Accordingly when the Father is called the
only God, and we read that there is one God^,
and *I am,' and 'beside Me there is no God,'
and *I the first and I the last 9,' this has
a fit meaning. For God is One and Only and
First ; but this is not said to the denial of the
Son ^°, perish the thought ; for He is in that
One, and First and Only, as being of that One
and Only and First the Only Word and Wisdom
and Radiance. And He too is the First, as
the Fulness of the Godhead of the First and
Only, being whole and full God ". This then
is not said on His account, but to deny that
there is other such as the Father and His
Word.
CHAPTER XXIV.
Texts Explained ; Eighthly, John xvii. 3.
AND THE LIKE.
Our Lord's divinity cannot interfere with His Father's
prerogatives, as the One God, which were so earn-
estly upheld by the Son. ' One ' is used in contrast
to false gods and idols, not to the Son, through
whom the Father spoke. Our Lord adds His Name
to the Father's, as included in Him. The Father the
First, not as if the Son were not First too, but as
Origin.
7. Now that this is the sense of the Prophet
is clear and manifest to all ; but since the
irreligious men, alleging such passages also,
dishonour the Lord and reproach us, saying,
' Behold God is said to be One and Only and
First ; how say ye that the Son is God ? for if
He were God, He had not said, " I Alone," nor
" God is One'';'" it is necessary to declare the
sense of these phrases in addition, as far as we
can, that all may know from this also that the
Arians are really contending with God^ If
there then is rivalry of the Son towards the
istence. Alhan. says that the title ' Maker ' does, but that the
title 'father' does not. vid. supr. p. 76, n. 3; Or. i. 29, n. 10;
ii. 41, n. II.
7 Athan. de Incam. c. Ar. 19, c. vid. Ambros. de Jid. iii.
cap. 12, 13. Naz. Orat. 23, 8. Basil, de Sp. S. n. 64.
8 Mark xii. 29. 9 P^x. iii. 14 ; Ueut. xxxiL 39, LXX. ;
Is. xliv. 6. '0 De Deer, iq, n. 6.
" Vid. supr. I, note 10; ii. 41 fin. also infr. iv. i. Pseudo-
Ath. c. Sab. Greg. 5 — 12. Naz. Orat. 40, 41. Synes. Hymn. iii.
pp. 328, 9. Ambros. de Fid. i. n. 18. August. Ep. 170, 5. vid. Or.
ii. 38, n. 6. and infr. note on 36 fin.
I Deut. xxxii. 39 ; vL 4, 6:c. " fleojitaxot. vid. Acts v. 39.
Father, then be such words uttered against
Him ; and if according to what is said to David
concerning Adonijah and Absalom 3, so also
the Father looks upon the Son, then let Him
utter and urge such words against Himself, lest
He the Son, calling Himself God, make any to
revolt from the Father. But if he who knows
the Son, on the contrary, knows the Father, the
Son Himself revealing Him to him, and in the
Word he shall rather see the Father, as has
been said, and if the Son on coming, glorified
not Himself but the Father, saying to one who
came to Him, ' Why callest thou Me good ?
none is good save One, that is, God* ;' and to
one who asked, what was the great command-
ment in the Law, answering, ' Hear, O Israel,
the Lord our God is One Lords;' and saying
to the multitudes, ' I came down from heaven,
not to do My own will, but the will of Him
that sent Me ^ ; ' and teaching the dis-
ciples, ' My Father is greater than I,' and
' He that honoureth Me, honoureth Him
that sent Me? ;' if the Son is such to-
wards His own Father, what is the difficulty 8,
that one must need take such a view of such
passages? and on the other hand, if the Son is
the Father's Word, who is so wild, besides
these Christ-opposers, as to think that God has
thus spoken, as traducing and denying His own
Word ? This is not the mind of Christians ;
perish the thought ; for not with reference to
the Son is it thus written, but for the denial of
those falsely called gods, invented by men.
8. And this account of the meaning of such
passages is satisfactory; for since those who
are devoted to gods falsely so called, revolt
from the True God, therefore God, being good
and careful for mankind, recalling the wander-
ers, says, ' I am Only God,' and ' I Am,' and
' Besides Me there is no God,' and the like ;
that He may condemn things which are not, and
may convert all men to Himself. And as,
supposing in the daytime when the sun was
shining, a man were rudely to paint a piece of
wood, which had not even the appearance of
light, and call that image the cause of light,
and if the sun with regard to it were to say, ' I
alone am the light of the day, and there is no
other light of the day but I,' he would say this,
with regard, not to his own radiance, but to the
error arising from the wooden image and the
dissimilitude of that vain representation ; so it
is with ' I am,' and ' I am Only God,' and
' There is none other besides Me,' viz, that He
may make men renounce falsely called gods,
and that they may recognise Him the true God
3 2 Sam. XV. 13; I Kings i. ii.
4 Luke xviii. 19, and vid. Basil. Ep. 236, i. S Mark xiL 29.
6 John vi. 38 ; xiv. 28. 7 John v. 23, cf. xiiL 2a
8 § 58, note.
398
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
instead. Indeed when God said this, He said
it through His own Word., unless forsooth the
modern 9 Jews add this too, that He has not
said this through His Word ; but so hath He
spoken, though they rave, these followers of the
devil '° For the Word of the Lord came to the
Prophet, and this was what was heard ; nor is
there a thing which God says or does, but He
says and does it in the Word. Not then with
reference to Him is this said, O Christ's
enemies, but to things foreign to Him and not
from" Him. For according to the aforesaid
illustration, if the sun had spoken those words,
he would have been setting right the error and
have so spoken, not as having his radiance
without him, but in the radiance shewing his
own light. Therefore not for the denial of the
Son, nor with reference to Him, are such
passages, but to the overthrow of falsehood.
Accordingly God spoke not such words to
Adam at the beginning, though His Word was
with Him, by whom all things came to be ; for
tjiere was no need, before idols came in ; but
when men made insurrection against the truth,
and named for themselves gods such as they
would ", then it was that need arose of such
words, for the denial of gods that were not.
Nay I would add, that they were said even
in anticipation of the folly of these Christ-
opposers'3j that they might know, that what-
soever god they devise external to the Father's
Essence, he is not True God, nor Image and
Son of the Only and First.
9. If then the Father be called the only true
God, this is said not to the denial of Him who
said, 'I am the Truth',' but of those on the
other hand who by nature are not true, as the
Father and His Word are. And hence the
Lord Himself added at once, ' And Jesus
Christ whom Thou didst send^' Now had He
been a creature. He would not have added this,
and ranked Himself with His Creator (for what
fellowship is there between the True and the not
true ?) ; but as it is, by adding Himself to the
Father, He has shewn that He is of the Father's
nature ; and He has given us to know that of
the True Father He is True Offspring. And
John too, as he had learned 3, so he teaches
9 01 vvv, cf. Or ii. i, note 6, and Hist. Ar. 6i, fin.
1° fita^oAiKoi. vid. supr. p. 187, and de Deer. 5, note 2. vid. also
Orat. ii. 38, a. 73, a. 74 init. Ep. ^g. 4 and 6. In the passage before
us there seems an allusion to false accusation or lying, which is the
proper meaning of the word ; Sta/SaAAtov occurs shortly before.
And so in Apol. ad Const, when he calls Magnentius 6ta|3oAos,
it is as being a traitor, 7. and soon after he says that his accuser
was TOf 6ta^6Aou TrpoTroi/ avaAajSioj/, where the word has no article,
and StujSe'/SATjfiat and 6ie/3Aj;0))i' have preceded, vid. also Hist. Ar.
52 fin. And so in Sent. D. his speaking of the Arians' ' father the
devilj' 3, c. is explained 4, b. by tovs iraTe'pas Sio/SaAAoVTWV and
" Trapa, vid. § 24 end, and John xv. 26. " ovs rjOeKov,
infr. § 10, n. I.
*3 Who worship one whom they themselves call a creature, vid.
supr. Or. i. 8, n. 8, ii. 14, n. 7, 21, n. 2, and below, § 16 notes.
I John xiv. 6. z lb xvii. 3. 3 ftaQutv eSiSa^e, de I
Deer. 7, n. 8 ; Or. ii. i, note 6*. I
this, writing in his Epistle, ' And we are in the
True, even in His Son Jesus Christ ; This is
the True God and eternal life 4.' And when the
Prophet says concerning the creation, ' That
stretcheth forth the heavens alone s,' and when
God says, '■ I only stretch out the heavens,' it is
made plain to every one, that in the Only is
signified also the Word of the Only, in whom
' all things were made,' and without whom *was
made not one thing.' Therefore, if they were
made through the Word, and yet He says, ' I
Only,' and together with that Only is under-
stood the Son, through whom the heavens were
made, so also then, if it be said, * One God,' and
' I Only,' and ' I the First,' in that One and
Only and First is understood the Word coexist-
ing, as in the Light the Radiance. And this
can be understood of no other than the Word
alone. For all other things subsisted out of
nothing through the Son, and are greatly differ-
ent in nature ; but the Son Himself is natural
and true Offspring from the Father ; and thus
the very passage which these insensates have
thought fit to adduce, * I the First,' in defence
of their heresy, doth rather expose their per-
verse spirit. . For God says, ' I the First and I
the Last ; ' if then, as though ranked with the
things after Him, He is said to be first of them,
so that they come next to Him, then certainly
you will have shewn that He Himself precedes
the works in time only ^ ; which, to go no
further, is extreme irreligion ; but if it is in
order to prove that He is not from any, nor any
before Him, but that He is Origin and Cause
of all things, and to destroy the Gentile fables,
that He has said ' I the First,' it is plain also,
that when the Son is called First-born, this is
done not for the sake of ranking Him with the
creation, but to prove the framing and adoption
of all things 7 through the Son. For as the
Father is First, so also is He both First^, as
4 I John V. 2o. 5 Isai. xliv. 24.
6 He says that in ' I the first ' the question of time does not
come in, else creatures would come ' second ' to the Creator, as
if His and their duration admitted of a common measure. ' First '
then does no: imply succession, but is equivalent to a-pxi] ; a word
which, as ' Father,' does not imply that the Son is not from eter-
nity. 7 ii. 62, n. 2.
8 It is no inconsistency to say that the Father is first, and the
Son first also, for comparison or number does not enter into mys-
tery. Since Each is oAos flebs. Each, as contemplated by our
finite reason, at the moment of contemplation excludes the Other.
Though we ' say ' Three Persons, Person hardly denotes one
abstract ' idea,' certainly not as containing under it three indi-
vidual subjects, but it is a 'term ' applied to the One God in three
ways. It is the doctrine of the Fathers, that, though we use
words expressive of a Trinity, yet that God is beyond number,
and that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, though eternally distinct
from each other, can scarcely be viewed together in common,
except as ' One ' substance, as if they could not be generalized
into Three Any whatever; and as if it were, strictly speaking,
incorrect to speak of 'a' Person, or otherwise than of 'the'
Person, whether of Father, or of Son, or of Spirit. The question
has almost been admitted by S. Austin, whether it is not possible to
say that God is ' One ' Person ( Trin. vii. 8), for He is wholly and
entirely Father, and at the same time wholly and entirely
Son, and wholly and entirely Holy Ghost. Some references
to the Fathers shall be given on that subject, in/r. 36 fin. vid.
also supr. § 6, n. 11. Meanwhile the doctrine here stated will
account for such expressions as ' God from God,' i.e. the One
DISCOURSE III.
399
I
Image of the First, and because the First is in
Him, and also Offspring from the Father, in
whom the whole creation is created and adopt-
ed into sonship.
CHAPTER XXV.
Texts Explained ; Ninthly, John x. 30 ;
xvii. II, &c.
Arian explanation, that the Son is one with the Father
in will and judgment ; but so are all good men, nay
things inanimate ; contrast of the Son. Oneness be-
tween Them is in nature, because oneness in opera-
tion. Angels not objects of prayer, because they do
not work together with God, but the Son; texts
quoted. Seeing an Angel, is not seeing God. Arians
in fact hold two Gods, and tend to Gentile polytheism.
Arian explanation that the Father and Son are one,
as we are one with Christ, is put aside by the Re^la
Fidei, and shewn invalid by the usage of Scripture in
illustrations ; the true force of the comparison ; force
of the terms used. Force of ' in us ; ' force of ' as ; '
confirmed by S. John. In what sense we are 'in
God ' and His ' sons.'
ID, However here too they introduce their
private fictions, and contend that the Son and
the Father are not in such wise ' one,' or ' like,'
as the Church preaches, but, as they themselves
would have it ^. For they say, since what the
Father wills, the Son wills also, and is not con-
trary either in what He thinks or in what He
judges, but is in all respects concordant" with
Him, declaring doctrines which are the same,
and a word consistent and united with the
Father's teaching, therefore it is that He and
the Father are One ; and some of them have
dared to write as well as say this 3. Now what
can be more unseemly or irrational than this?
for if therefore the Son and the Father are One,
and if in this way the Word is like the Father,
it follows forthwith-^ that the Angelss too, and
the other beings above us, Powers and Author-
ities, and Thrones and Dominions, and what we
see, Sun and Moon, and the Stars, should be
sons also, as the Son; and that it should be
God (who is the Son) from the One God (who is the Father) ; vid.
supr. de Syn. 52, note 8. Again, i\ ovcrCa avryj rrjs ovo-ia; n^s
TraTpiK-qi iarl yeVi/rj/ita. de Syn. 48, b. Vid. also in/r. Orat, iv.
I and 2,
' (OS avTol fle'Aovat. vid. § 8, n. 12. ' not as you say, but as
we will.' This is a common phrase with Athan. vid. siipr. Or. i.
13, n. 6. and especially Hist. Ar. 52, n.4. (vid. also Sent. Dion. 4,
14). It is here contrasted to the Church's doctrine, and connected
with the word tSios- lor which de Syn. 3, n. 6 ; On i. 37, n. i.
Vid. also Letter 54. fin. Also contr. Apoll. ii. 5 init. iu con-
trast with the evayy^KiKhs bpos.
2 (rv/ii(/)(oi/os. vid. in/r. 23, de Syn. 48, and 53, n. g. the Arian
a-uix(\>iiivia. is touched 011 de Syn. 23, n. 3. Besides Origen, Nov.i-
tian, the Creed of Lucian, and (if so) S. Hilary, as mentioned
in the former of these notes, ' one ' is explained as oneness of will
by S. Hippolytus, contr. Noet. 7, where he explains John x. 30. by
xvii. 22. like the Arians ; and, as might be expected, by Eusebius
Eccl. Theol. iii. p. 193. and by Asterius ap. Euseb. contr. Marc.
pp. 28, 37. The passages of the Fathers in which this text is ad-
duced are collected by Maldonat. in loc.
3 Asterius, § 2, init.
4 uifta.. vid. de Syn. 34, n. 4. also Orat. ii. 6, b. iv. 19, c. d.
Euseb. contr. Marc. p. 47, b. p. 91, b. Cyril. Dial. p. 456.
Thesaur. p. 255 fin.
5 This argument is found de Syn. 48. vid. also Cyril, de T^in.
i. p 407-
said of them too, that they and the Father are
one, and that each is God's Image and Word.
For what God wills, that will they ; and neither
in judging nor in doctrine are they discordant,
but in all things are obedient to their Maker.
For they would not have remained in their own
glory, unless, what the Father willed, that they
had willed also. He, for instance, who did
not remain, but went astray, heard the
words, ' How art thou fallen from heaven, O
Lucifer, son of the morning^?' But if this be
so, how is only He Only-begotten Son and
Word and Wisdom ? or how, whereas so many
are Hke the Father, is He only an Image ? for
among men too will be found many like the
Father, numbers, for instance, of martyrs, and
before them the Apostles and Prophets, and
again before them the Patriarchs. And many
now too keep the Saviour's command, being
merciful ' as their Father which is in heaven?,'
and observing the exhortation, ' Be ye therefore
followers of God as dear children, and walk in
love, as Christ also hath loved us^ ;' many too
have become followers of Paul as he also of
Christ ^^ And yet no one of these is Word or
Wisdom or Only-begotten Son or Image ; nor
did any one of them make bold to say, ' I
and the Father are One,' or, ' I in the Father, and
the Father in Me 9;' but it is said of all of
them, ' Who is like unto Thee among the gods,
O Lord ? and who shall be likened to the Lord
among the sons of God^°?' and of Him on the
contrary that He only is Image true and natural
of the Father. For though we have been made
after the Image ^^ and called both image and
glory of God, yet not on our own account still,
but for that Image and true Glory of God in-
habiting us, which is His Word, who was for
us afterwards made flesh, have we this grace
of our designation.
II. This their notion then being evidently
unseemly and irrational as well as the rest, the
likeness and the oneness must be referred to the
very Essence of the Son ; for unless it be so
taken. He will not be shewn to have anything
beyond things originate, as has been said, nor
will He be like the Father, but He will be like
the Father's doctrines ; and He differs from the
Father, in that the Father is Father % but the
6 Is. xiv. 12. 7 Luke vi. 36 (of. Tisch. in loc.)
8 Eph. V. I, 2. 8» I Cor. xi. I. 9 John x. 30; xiv. 10.
10 Vid. Ps Ixxxvi. 8; Ixxxix. 6. "' Aug. de Trin. vii. fin.
I Cf. Scrap, i. 16. de Syn. 51. and infr. § 19, note. And so
S. Cyril, cf. Or. i. 21—24, 'ie Deer. 11, n. 6, Thesaur. p. 133, Naz.
Orat. 29, 5. vid. also 23, 6 fin. 25, 16. vid. also the whole of Basil,
adv. Eun. ii. 23. ' One must not say,' he observes, ' that these
names properly and primarily, Kvpiuf; Kai TrpcoTws belong to ment
and are given by us but by a figure KaTa^pTjcrTKcws (ii. 39, n. j) to
God. For our Lord Jesus Christ, referring us back to the Origin
of all and 'True Cause of beings, says, " Call no one your lather
upon earth, for One is your Father, which is in heaven.'" He
adds, that if He is properly and not metaphorically even our
Father {de Deer. 31, n. 5), rauch more is He the Tvaririp toO Kara
ipv<rn> vlov. Vid. also Euseb. contr. Marc. p. 22, c. Eccl. Theol. i.
400
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
doctrines and teaching are the Father's. If
then in respect to the doctrines and the teach-
ing the Son is Hke the Father, then the Father
according to them will be Father in name only,
and the Son will not be an exact Image, or
rather will be seen to have no propriety at all
or likeness of the Father ; for what likeness or
propriety has he who is so utterly different from
the Father ? for Paul taught like the Saviour,
yet was not like Him in essence ^' Having then
such notions, they speak falsely ; whereas the
Son and the Father are one in such wise as has
been said, and in such wise is the Son like the
Father Himself and from Him, as we may see
and understand son to be towards father, and
as we may see the radiance towards the sun.
Such then being the Son, therefore when the
Son works, the Father is the Worker3, and the
Son coming to the Saints, the Father is He who
cometh in the Son 4, as He promised when
He said, ' I and My Father will come, and will
make Our abode with hims ; ' for in the Image
is contemplated the Father, and in the Radiance
is the Light. Therefore also, as we said just now,
when the Father gives grace and peace, the Son
also gives it, as Paul signifies in every Epistle,
writing, ' Grace to you and peace from God our
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ' For one
and the same grace is from the Father in the
Son, as the light of the sun and of the radiance
is one, and as the sun's illumination is effected
through the radiance ; and so too when he
prays for the Thessalonians, in saying, ' Now
God Himself even our Father, and the Lord
Jesus Christ, may He direct our way unto you^,'
he has guarded the unity of the Father and of
the Son. For he has not said, ' May they
direct,' as if a double grace were given from
two Sources, This and That, but ' May He
direct,' to shew that the Father gives it through
the Son ; — at which these irreligious ones will
not blush, though they well might.
12. For if there were no unity, nor the Word
the own Offspring of the Father's Essence,
as the radiance of the light, but the Son were
12. fin. ii. 6. ^ Marcellus, on the other hand, said that our Lord
was KvpCui Aoyos, not Kupi'us uids. ibid. ii. lo fin. vid. sujfir. ii. 19,
note 3.
" Ka.T ovaCav o/notos, Or. i. 21, n. 8. 3 Swpr. § 6.
4 And so cpyafofteVou tov Traxpos, ipyd(e<T0ai. koI toi' viov. In
illud Omn. i, d. Cum luce nobis prodeat, In Patre totus Filius,
et totus in Verbo Pater. Hymn. Brev. infer. 2. Ath. argues from
this oneness of operation the oneness of substance. And thus
S. Chrysostom on the text under review argues that if the Father
and Sou are one Kara Tr\v Syva/jnv, they are one also in ovtria. in
Joan. Horn. 61, 2, d. TertuUian in Prax. 22. and S. Epiphanius,
Har. 57. p. 488. seem to say the same on the same text. vid.
Lampe 2'« loc. And so S. Athan. rpias dStai'pcTos Tjj <^v<rei, (cat
M-ia TauTrjs 17 ere'pyeio. Serap. i. 28, f. 'iv 6i\i\[i.a. naTpoi Koi viov
Kttl ^ouArj/xa, ejrei /cat r) <|)ii(rts juta. /« illud Omn. 5. Various
passages of the Fathers to the same effect (e.g. of S. Ambrose,
si unius voluntatis et operationis, unius est essentise, de Sp. ii. 12.
fin. and of S. Basil, S>v jUta eve'pyeta, tou'twi/ /cat oiicria /nio, of Greg.
Nyss. and Cyril. Alex.) are brought together in the Lateran Coun-
cil. Concil. Hard. t. 3, p. 859, &c. The subject is Ucated at
length by Petavius Trin, iv. 15.
5 John xiv. 23. 6 I Thess. iii. 11.
divided in nature from the Father, it were suffi-
cient that the Father alone should give, since
none of originate things is a partner with his
Maker in His givings ; but, as it is, such a mode
of giving shews the oneness of the Father and
the Son. No one, for instance, would pray to
receive from God and the Angels % or from
any other creature, nor would any one say,
' May God and the Angel give thee ; ' but
from Father and the Son, because of Their
oneness and the oneness of Their giving.
For through the Son is given what is given ;
and there is nothing but the Father operates
it through the Son ; for thus is grace secure to
him who receives it. And if the Patriarch
Jacob, blessing his grandchildren Ephraim
and Manasses, said, ' God which fed me all
my life long unto this day, the Angel which
delivered me from all evil, bless the lads%' yet
none of created and natural Angels did he
join to God their Creator, nor rejecting God
that fed him, did he from Angel ask the
blessing on his grandsons ; but in saying,
'Who delivered me from all evil,' he shewed
that it was no created Angel, but the Word of
God, whom he joined to the Father in his
prayer, through whom, whomsoever He will,
God doth deliver. For knowing that He is
also called the Father's ' Angel of great Coun-
sels,' he said that none other than He was the
Giver of blessing, and Deliverer from evil.
Nor was it that he desired a blessing for
himself from God but for his grandchildren
from the Angel, but whom He Himself had
besought saying, ' I will not let Thee go
except Thou bless me* ' (for that was God,
as he says himself, ' I have seen God face to
face'). Him he prayed to bless also the sons of
Joseph. It is proper then to an Angel to
minister at the command of God, and often
does he go forth to cast out the Amorite,
and is sent to guard the people in the way;
but these are not his doings, but of God
who commanded and sent him, whose also
it is to deliver, whom He will deliver. There-
* Vid. Basil de Sj>. S. c. 13. Chrysostom on Col. 2. And
Theodoret on Col. iii. 17. says, ' Following this rule, the Synod
of Laodicea, with a view to cure this ancient disorder, passed
a decree against the praying to Angels, and leaving our Lord Jesus
Christ.' 'All supplication, prayer, intercession, and thanksgiving
is to be addressed to the Supreme God, through the High Priest
who is above all Angels, the Living Word and God. . . . But
angels we may not fitly call upon, since we have not obtained
a knowledge of them which is above men.' Origen contr. Cels. v.
4, 5. vid. also for similar statements Voss. de Idololatr. i. 9. The
doctrine of the Gnostics, who worshipped Angels, is referred to
suj>r. Orat. i. 56, fin. note i.
* Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. vid. Serap. i. 14. And on the doctrine
vid. de Syn. 27 (15, 16). Infr. % 14, he shews that his doctrine,
when fully explained, does not differ from S. Augustine, for he
says, 'what was seen was an Angel, but God spoke in bim,'i.e.
sometimes the Son is called an Angel, but when an Angel was
see7i, it was not the Son ; and if he called himself God, it was not
he who spoke, but the Son was the unseen speaker, vid. Bene-
dictine Monitum in HiU Trin. iv. For passages vid. TertulL
de Prtescr. p. 447, note f. Oxf. Transl.
3 Is. ix, 6, LXX. 4 Gen. xxxii. 26, 30.
DISCOURSE III.
401
fore it was no other than the Lord God Him-
self whom he had seen, who said to him,
'And behold I am with thee, to guard thee
in all the way whither thous goest;' and it
was no other than God whom He had seen,
who kept Laban from his treachery, ordering
him not to speak evil words to Jacob ; and
none other than God did he himself beseech,
saying, ' Rescue me from the hand of my
brother Esau, for I fear him^;' for in con-
versation too with his wives he said, ' God
hath not suffered Laban to injure me.'
13. Therefore it was none other than God
Himself that David too besought concerning
his deliverance, ' When I was in trouble, I
called upon the Lord, and He heard me;
deliver my soul, O Lord, from lying lips and
from a deceitful tongue \' To Him also giving
thanks he spoke the words of the Sdng in
the seventeenth Psalm, in the day in which the
Lord delivered him from the hand of all his
enemies and from the hand of Saul, saying,
* I will love Thee, O Lord my strength ; the
Lord is my strong rock and my defence and
deliverer^' And Paul, after enduring many
persecutions, to none other than God gave
thanks, saying, ' Out of them all the Lord de-
hvered me; and He will deliver in Whom
we trusts.' And none other than God blessed
Abraham and Isaac; and Isaac praying for
Jacob, said, 'May God bless thee and increase
thee and multiply thee, and thou shalt be
for many companies of nations, and may He
give thee the blessing of Abraham my fatherl'
But if it belong to none other than God to
bless and to deliver, and none other was the
deliverer of Jacob than the Lord Himself,
and Him that delivered him the Patriarch
besought for his grandsons, evidently none
other did he join to God in his prayer, than
God's Word, whom therefore he called Angel,
because it is He alone who reveals the Father.
Which the Apostle also did when he said,
'Grace unto you and peace from God our
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ ^a.' For thus
the blessing was secure, because of the Son's
indivisibility from the Father, and for that the
grace given by Them is one and the same.
For though the Father gives it, through the
Son is the gift ; and though the Son be said
to vouchsafe it, it is the Father who supplies
it through and in the Son ; for ' I thank my
God,' says the Apostle writing to the Corin-
thians, ' always on your behalf, for the grace
of God which is given you in Christ Jesus s.'
And this one may see in the instance of light
and radiance; for what the hght enlightens.
S Geu. xxviii, 15, LXX.
I, 2. 2 Ps. xviii. I, 2.
4 Gen. xxviii. 3, 4, LXX.
VOL IV.
fi Ib.xxxi. 7; xxxij. 11. ' PS.CXX.
3 Vid. 2 Tim. iii. 11 ; 2 Cor. i. 10.
-t* Rom. i. 7, &c. 5 1 Cor. i. 4.
Dd
that the radiance irradiates ; and what the
radiance irradiates, from the light is its en-
lightenment. So also when the Son is beheld,
so is the Father, for He is the Father's radi-
ance ; and thus the Father and the Son are
one.
14. But this is not so with things originate
and creatures ; for when the Father works,
it is not that any Angel works, or any other
creature; for none of these is an efficient
caused but they are of things which come
to be ; and moreover being separate and
divided from the only God, and other in
nature, and being works, they can neither
work what God works, nor, as I said before,
when God gives grace, can they give grace
with Him. Nor, on seeing an Angel would
a man say that he had seen the Father; for
Angels, as it is written, are ' ministering spirits
sent forth to minister %' and are heralds of
gifts given by Him through the Word to those
who receive them. And the Angel on his
appearance, himself confesses that he has
been sent by his Lord ; as Gabriel confessed
in the case of Zacharias, and also in the
case of Mary, bearer of Gods, And he who
beholds a vision of Angels, knows that he
has seen the Angel and not God. For Za-
charias saw an Angel ; and Isaiah saw the
Lord. Manoah, the father of Samson, saw
an Angel; but Moses beheld God. Gideon
saw an Angel, but to Abraham appeared God.
And neither he who saw God, beheld an
Angel, nor he who saw an Angel, considered
that he saw God; for greatly, or rather wholly,
do things by nature originate differ from God
the Creator. But if at any time, when the
Angel was seen, he who saw it heard God's
voice, as took place at the bush ; for ' the
Angel of the Lord was seen in a flame of fire
out of the bush, and the Lord called Moses
out of the bush, saying, I am the God of thy
father, the God of Abraham and the God
of Isaac and the God of Jacob +,' yet was not
I Or. ii. 21, n. 2. * Heb. i. 14.
3 Trjs eeoTOKou Mapi'as. [Prolegg. ch. iv. § 5.] vid. also z«^.
29, 33. Orat. iv. 32. Incarn. c. Ar. 8, 22. supr. Or. i. 45, n. 3.
As to the history of this title, Theodoret, who from his party
would rather be disinclined towards it, says that the most ancient
(tuj/ TraAat Kttl rrpoiraAat) heralds of the orthodox faith taught to
name and believe the Mother of the Lord Q^otokov, according to
' the Apostolical tradition.' HiEr. iv. 12. And John of Antioch,
whose championship of Nestorius and quarrel with S. Cyril are
well known, writes to the former. ' This title no ecclesiastical
teacher has put aside ; those who have used it are many and
eminent, and those who have not used it have not attacked those
who used it.' Concil. Eph. part i. c. 25 (Labb.). Socrates Hist,
vii. 32. says that Origen, in the first tome of his Comment on the
Ilomans (vid. de la Rue in Rom. lib. i. 5. the original is lost),
treated largely of the word ; which implies that it was already in
use. ' Interpreting,' he says, ' how tieoTOKOi is used, he dis-
cussed the question at length." Constantine implies the same in
a passage which divines, e.g. Pearson (On the Creed, notes on
Art. 3.), have not dwelt upon (or rather have apparently over-
looked, in arguing from Ephrem. a/>. Phot. Cod, 228, p. 776. that
the literal phrase ' Mother of God ' originated in S. Leo). [See
vol. I, p. 569 of this Series.] 4 Vid. Ex. iii. 2—6.
402
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
the Angel the God of Abraham, but in the
Angel God spoke. And what was seen was
an Angel; but God spoke in hims. For as
He spoke to Moses in the pillar of a cloud
in the tabernacle, so also God appears and
speaks in Angels. So again to the son of
Nun He spake by an Angel. But what God
speaks, it is very plain He speaks through
the Word, and not through another. And
the Word, as being not separate from the
Father, nor unlike and foreign to the Father's
Essence, what He works, those are the Fa-
ther's works, and His framing of all things
is one with His ; and what the Son gives, that
is the Father's gift. And he who hath seen
the Son, knows that, in seeing Him, he has
seen, not Angel, nor one merely greater than
Angels, nor in short any creature, but the
Father Himself. And he who hears the Word,
knows that he hears the Father; as he who
is irradiated by the radiance, knows that he is
enlightened by the sun.
15. For divine Scripture wishing us thus to
understand the matter, has given such illustra-
tions, as we have said above, from which we
are able both to press the traitorous Jews, and
to refute the allegation of Gentiles who main-
tain and think, on account of the Trinity, that
we profess many gods^. For, as the illustration
shews, we do not introduce three Origins
or three Fathers, as the followers of Marcion
and Manichseus ; since we have not suggested
the image of three suns, but sun and radiance.
And one is the light from the sun in the
radiance ; and so we know of but one origin ;
and the All-framing Word we profess to have
no other manner of godhead, than that of the
Only God, because He is born from Him.
Rather then will the Ario-maniacs with reason
incur the charge of polytheism or else of
atheism 7, because they idly talk of the Son
as external and a creature, and again the Spirit
as from nothing. For either they will say that
the Word is not God; or saying that He is
God ^, because it is so written, but not proper
to the Father's Essence, they will introduce
many because of their difference of kind
(unless forsooth they shall dare to say that
by participation only, He, as all things else,
is called God; though, if this be their senti-
ment, their irreligion is the same, since they
consider the Word as one among all things).
But let this never even come into our mind.
For there is but one form 9 of Godhead, which
is also in the Word ; and one God, the Father,
existing by Himself according as He is above
5 § 12, note 2.
6 Scrap, i. 28 fin. Naz. Orat. 23, 8. Basil. Horn. 24 init. Nyssen.
Orat. Catech. 3. p. 481.
7 In/r. § 64. £J>. ^s- 14- * W'r- % 16. notes. 9 elfies.
all, and appearing in the Son according as
He pervades all things, and in the Spirit
according as in Him He acts in all things
through the Word'°. For thus we confess
God to be one through the Triad, and we
say that it is much more religious than the
godhead of the heretics with its many kinds",
and many parts, to entertain a belief of the
One Godhead in a Triad.
16. For if it be not so, but the Word is
a creature and a work out of nothing, either
He is not True God because He is Himself
one of the creatures, or if they name Him God
from regard for the Scriptures, they must of
necessity say that there are two Gods% one
Creator, the other creature, and must serve
two Lords, one Unoriginate, and the other
originate and a creature ; and must have two
faiths, "one in the True God, and the other
in one who is made and fashioned by them-
selves and called God. And it follows of
necessity in so great blindness, that, when
they worship the Unoriginate, they renounce
the originate, and when they come to the
creature, they turn from the Creator. For
they cannot see the One in the Other, be-
cause their natures and operations are foreign
and distinct^ And with such sentiments, they
will certainly be going on to more gods, for
this will be the essay 3 of those who revolt
from the One God. Wherefore then, when
the Arians have these speculations and views,
do they not rank themselves with the Gentiles ?
for they too, as these, worship the creature
rather than God the Creator of all4, and though
they shrink from the Gentile name, in order
to deceive the unskilful, yet they secretly hold
a like sentiment with them. For their subtle
saying which they are accustomed to urge,
' We say not two Unoriginatess,' they plainly
say to deceive the simple ; for in their very
professing 'We say not two Unoriginates,' they
imply two Gods, and these with different
natures, one originate and one Unoriginate.
And though the Greeks worship one Unorigi-
nate and many originate, but these one Un-
originate and one originate, this is no differ-
10 And so infr. 25, 36 fin. Scrap, i. 20, b. vid. also ibid. 28, f. a.
30, a. 31, d. iii. i, b. 5 init. et fin. Eulogius ap. Phot. cod. p. 865.
Damascen. F. O. i. 7. Basil de Sp. S. 47, e. Cyr. Cat. xvi. 4. ibid.
24. Pseudo-Dion, de Div. Nom. i. p. 403. Pseudo-Athan. c. Sab.
Greg. 10, e. '' TroAveiSovs.
1 Vid. p. 75, note 7 ; de Syn. 27 (2), and 50, note $._ The
Arians were in the dilemma of holding two gods or worshipping
the creature, unless they denied to our Lord both divinity and
worship, vid. de Deer. 6, note 5, Or. i. 30, n. i. But ' everysub-
stance,'says S. Austin, ' which is not God, is a creature, and which is
not a creature, is God.' de Trin. i 6. And so S. Cyril in Joan. p. 52.
vid. also Naz. Orat. 31, 6. Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 31.
2 § II, n. 4. 3 eiri.x^Cprifi,a, de Deer, i, note.
4 Vid. sttpr. ii. '4, n. 7. Petavius gives a large collection of
passages, de Trin. ii. 12. § 5. from the Fathers in proof of the
worship of Our Lord evidencing His Godhead. On the Arians as
idolaters vid. supr. Or. i. 8, n. 8. also Ep. .^g. 4, 13. and Adelph.
3 init. Scrap, i. 29, d. Theodoret in Rom. i. 25. 5 Or. i. 30, n. i-
DISCOURSE III.
403
ence from them ; for the God whom they call
originate is one out of many, and again the
many gods of the Greeks have the same nature
with this one, for both he and they are crea-
tures. Unhappy are they, and the more for
that their hurt is from thinking against Christ ;
for they have fallen from the truth, and are
greater traitors than the Jews in denying the
Christ, and they wallow^ with the Gentiles,
hateful? as they are to God, worshipping
the creature and many deities. For there
is One God, and not many, and One is
His Word, and not many; for the Word
is God, and He alone has the Form ^ of
the Father. Being then such, the Saviour
Himself troubled the Jews with these words,
* The Father Himself which hath sent Me,
hath borne witness of Me ; ye have neither
heard His voice at any time nor seen His
Form ; and ye have not His Word abiding in
you ; for whom He hath sent. Him ye believe
not 9,' Suitably has He joined the ' Word' to
the ' Form,' to shew that the Word of God is
Himself Image and Expression and Form of
His Father; and that the Jews who did not
receive Him who spoke to them, thereby did
not receive the Word, which is the Form of
God, This too it was that the Patriarch Jacob
having seen, received a blessing from Him
and the name of Israel instead of Jacob, as
divine Scripture witnesses, saying, ' And as
he passed by the Form of God, the Sun rose
upon him '°.' And This it was who said, ' He
that hath seen Me hath seen the Father,' and,
' I in the Father and the Father in Me,' and,
* I and the Father are one";' for thus God is
One, and one the faith in the Father and Son ;
for, though the Word be God, the Lord our
God is one Lord ; for the Son is proper to
* avyKvXiovTai, vid. Orai. i. 23. ii. i init. ; £>ecr. 9 fin. ; Geni.
19, C. cf. 2 Pet. ii. 22. 7 fleocTTvyeis, in/r. Letter 54. i fin.
8 eiSos' also in Gen. xxxii. 30. 31. Sept. [a substitute for
Heb. 'face.'] vid. Justin Tryph. 126. and supr. de Syn. 56,
n. 6. for tlie meaning of the word. It was just now used
for 'kind.' Athan. says, de Syn. -tibi siipr. 'there is but one
form of Godhead ; ' yel the word is used of the Son as synonymous
with ■ image.' It would seem as if there are a certain class of words,
all expressive of the One Divine Substance, which admit of more
appropriate application either ordiiiarily or under circumstances,
to This or That Divine Person who is also that One Substance.
Thus 'Being' is more descriptive of the Father as the wjjyr) 0eo-
TTj-oj, and He is said to be ' the Being of the Son ; ' yet the Son is
really the One Supreme Being also. On the other hand the words
nop^rj and elSos [on them see Lightfoot, Philipp. p. 128] arc rather
descriptive of the Divine Substance in the Person of the Son, and He
is called ' the form of the Father,' yet there is but one Form and Face
of Divinity, who is at once Each of Three Persons ; while ' Spirit '
is appropriated to the Third Person, though God is a Spirit. Thus
again S. Hippolytus says kii \jov Trarpos] Sui'a/u.ts Ao'vos, yet shortly
before, after mentioning the Two Persons, he adds, fivi/anii/ 6e
fii'ai/, contr. Noet. 7 and 11. And thus the word ' Subsistence,'
tiTToa-Tao-ts, which expresses the One Divine Substance, has been
found more appropriate to express that Substance viewed per-
sonally. Other words may be used correli-tively of either Father
or Sou ; thus the Father is the Life of the Son, the Son the Life of
the Father ; or, again, the Father is in the Son and the Son in the
Father. Others in common, as ' the Father's Godhead is the
Son's,' i\ TrarpiKT) viou OeoTT)?, as indeed the word oucria itself.
Other words on the contrary express the Substance in This or
That Person only, as ' Word,' ' Im.ige,' &c. 9 John v. 37.
«o Gen. xxxii. 31, LXX. " John xiv. 9, 10; x. 30.
that One, and inseparable according to the
propriety and peculiarity of His Essence.
17, The Arians, however, not even thus
abashed, reply, ' Not as you say, but as we
wilP;' for, whereas you have overthrown our
former expedients, we have invented a new
one, and it is this : — So are the Son and the
Father One, and so is the Father in the Son
and the Son in the Father, as we too may
become one in Him. For this is written in
the Gospel according to John, and Christ
desired it for us in these words, ' Holy Father,
keep through Thine own Name, those whom
Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as
We are ^.' And shortly after ; ' Neither pray
I for these alone, but for them also which
shall believe on Me through their Word ; that
they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in
Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one
in Us, that the world may believe that Thou
hast sent Me. And the glory which Thou
gavest Me I have given them, that they may
be one, even as We are one ; I in them, and
Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect
in one, and that the world may know that
Thou didst send Me 3.' Then, as having found
an evasion, these men of craft 4 add, ' If, as
we become one in the Father, so also He and
the Father are one, and thus He too is in the
Father, how pretend you from His saying,
" I and the Father are One," and " I in the
Father and the Father in Me," that He is
proper and like s the Father's Essence ? for it
follows either that we too are proper to the
Father's Essence, or He foreign to it, as we
are foreign,' Thus they idly babble; but in
this their perverseness I see nothing but un-
reasoning audacity and recklessness from the
devil ^, since it is saying after his pattern, ' We
will ascend to heaven, we will be like the
Most High.' For what is given to man by
grace, this they would make equal to the God-
head of the Giver. Thus hearing that men
are called sons, they thought themselves equal
to the True Son by nature such ?. And now
again hearing from the Saviour, * that they
may be one as We are ^,' they deceive them-
selves, and are arrogant enough to think that
they may be such as the Son is in the Father
and the Father in the Son; not considering
the fall of their 'father the devil?,' which
happened upon such an imagination.
i8. If then, as we have many times said,
the Word of God is the same with us, and
nothing differs from us except in time, let Him
be like us, and have the same place with the
I § lo, n, I. " John xvii. ii. 3 lb. 20—23. _
4 ot ioKiai. crafty as they are, also infr. 59, 5 Or. i. ai,
n. 8, cf. infr. § 67. « Sia^oAnoji' vid. § 8, n. 10., cf. Isa. xiv. 14.
7 Supr. p. 171, note s. ^ John viii. 44. 9 ii. 73, n. 7.
D d 2
404
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
Father as we have ; nor let Him be called
Only-begotten, nor Only Word or Wisdom of
the Father • but let the same name be of com-
mon application to all us who are like Him.
For it is right, that they who have one nature,
should have their name in common, though
they differ from each other in point of time.
For Adam was a man, and Paul a man, and
he who is now born is a man, and time
is not that which alters the nature of the
race ^ If then the Word also differs from us
only in time, then we must be. as He. But in
truth neither we are Word or Wisdom, nor is
He creature or work ; else why are we all
sprung from one, and He the Only Word ? but
though it be suitable in them thus to speak, in
us at least it is unsuitable to entertain their
blasphemies. And yet, needless^ though it
be to refine upon 3 these passages, considering
their so clear and religious sense, and our own
orthodox belief, yet that their irreligion may
be shewn here also, come let us shortly,
as we have received from the fathers, expose
their heterodoxy from the passage. It is
a custom 4 with divine Scripture to take the
things of nature as images and illustrations for
mankind ; and this it does, that from these
physical objects the moral impulses of man
may be explained ; and thus their conduct
shewn to be either bad or righteous. For
instance, in the case of the bad, as when it
charges, ' Be ye not like to horse and mule
which have no understandings.' Or as when
it says, complaining of those who have become
such, ' Man, being in honour, hath no under-
standing, but is compared unto the beasts that
perish.' And again, 'They were as wanton
horses^.' And the Saviour to expose Herod
said, 'Tell that fox?;' but, on the other
hand, charged His disciples, ' Behold I
send you forth as sheep in the midst of
wolves ; be ye therefore wise as serpents and
harmless as doves s.' And He said this, not
that we may become in nature beasts of
burden, or become serpents and doves; for
He hath not so made us Himself, and there-
fore nature does not allow of it ; but that we
might eschew the irrational motions of the one,
and being aware of the wisdom of that other
animal, might not be deceived by it, and
might take on us the meekness of the dove.
19. Again, taking patterns for man from
divine subjects, the Saviour says ; ' Be ye mer-
ciful, as your Father which is in heaven is
merciful ';' and, ' Be ye perfect, as your hea-
venly Father is perfect ^'Z And He said this
» De Deer. lo ; Or. i. 26, n. i. a Cf. Hist. Ar. 80, n. 11.
3 7repi6pya^eo-0ai- vid. Or. ii. 34, n. 5. 4 Qrat. ii. 53, n. 4 ;
Orat. iv. 33 init. 5 Ps. xxxii. 9 ; xlix. 20. 6 Jer. v. 8.
7 Luke xiii. 32. 8 Matt. x. 16. ' Luke vi. 36.
a Matt. V. 48.
too, not that we might become such as the
Father; for to become as the Father, is im-
possible for us creatures, who have been
brought to be out of nothing ; but as He
charged us, ' Be ye not like to horse,' not lest
we should become as draught animals, but that
we should not imitate their want of reason, so,
not that we might become as God, did He
say, ' Be ye merciful as your Father,' but that
looking at His beneficent acts, what we do
well, we might do, not for men's sake, but for
His sake, so that from Him and not from men
we may have the reward. For as, although
there be one Son by nature, True and Only-
begotten, we too become sons, not as He in
nature and truth, but according to the grace
of Him that calleth, and though we are men
from the earth, are yet called gods 3, not as
the True God or His Word, but as has pleased
God who has given us that grace ; so also, as
God do we become merciful, not by being
made equal to God, nor becoming in nature
and truth benefactors (for it is not our gift to
benefit but belongs to God), but in order that
what has accrued to us from God Himself by
grace, these things we may impart to others,
without making distinctions, but largely to-
wards all extending our kind service. For
only in this way can we anyhow become
imitators, and in no other, when we minister to
others what comes from Him. And as we put
a fair and right '< sense upon these texts,
such again is the sense of the lection in John.
For he does not say, that, as the Son is in the
Father, such we must become : — whence could
it be ? when He is God's Word and Wisdom,
and we were fashioned out of the earth, and
He is by nature and essence Word and true
God (for thus speaks John, ' We know that the
Son of God is come, and He hath given us an
understanding to know Him that is true, and
we are in Him that is true, even in His Son
Jesus Christ ; this is the true God and eternal
life s), and we are made sons through Him by
adoption and grace, as partaking of His Spirit
(for 'as many as received Him,' he says, 'to
them gave He power to become children of
God, even to them that believe on His Name^),
and therefore also He is the Truth (saying,
' I am the Truth,' and in His address to His
Father, He said, 'Sanctify them through Thy
Truth, Thy Word is Truth ^ ') ; but we by imi-
tation 2 become virtuous 9 and sons : — therefore
3 fieoi, §§ 23 end, 25, and ii. 70, n. i. 4 ii. 44, n. i.
5 1 John V. 20. 6 John i. 12. 7 lb. xiv. 6; xvii. 17.
8 Kara fiCfxriinv. Clem. Alex. Ptedag. i. 3. p. ro2. ed. Pott.
Naz. Ep. 102. p. 95. (Ed. Ben.) Leu m various places, supr. ii.
55, n. I. Iren. Heer. v. i. August. Serin. loi, 6. August. Triii. iv.
17. also ix. 21. and Eusebius, Kara ■riji' awroO iJ.CiJi.r)<Tiv. EccU Theol,
iii. 19, a. For inward grace as opposed to teacluDg, vid. supr,
Orat. ii. 56, n. s, and 79, n. 10.
9 kvapizoi so iravapeTOS Clem. Rom. Ei>. i.
DISCOURSE III.
405
not that we might become such as He, did He
say ' that they may be one as We are ;' but
that as He, being the Word, is in His own
Father, so that we too, taking an examplar and
looking at Him, might become one towards
each other in concord and oneness of spirit,
nor be at variance as the Corinthians, but
mind the same thing, as those five thousand
in the Acts ^°, who were as one.
20. For it is as 'sons,' not as the Son; as
*gods,' not as He Himself; and not as the
Father, but ' merciful as the Father.' And, as
has been said, by so becoming one, as the
Father and the Son, we shall be such, not as
the Father is by nature in the Son and the
Son in the Father, but according to our own
nature, and as it is possible for us thence to
be moulded and to learn. how we ought to be
one, just as Ave learned also to be merciful.
For like things are naturally one with like ;
thus all flesh is ranked together in kind ' ; but
the Word is unlike us and like the Father.
And therefore, while He is in nature and truth
one with His own Father, we, as being of one
kind with each other (for from one were all
made, and one is the nature of all men),
become one with each other in good disposi-
tion^, having as our copy the Son's natural
unity with the Father. For as He taught us
meekness from Himself, saying, ' Learn of Me,
for I am meek and lowly in heart 3,' not that
we may become equal to Him, which is im-
possible, but that looking towards Him, we
may remain meek continually, so also here,
wishing that our good disposition towards each
other should be true and firm and indisso-
luble, from Himself taking the pattern, He
says, ' that they may be one as We are,' whose
oneness is indivisible ; that is, that tiiey
learning from us of that indivisible Nature,
may preserve in like manner agreement one
with another. And this imitation of natural
conditions is especially safe for man, as has
been said ; for, since they remain and never
change, whereas the conduct of men is very
changeable, one may look to what is un-
changeable by nature, and avoid what is bad
and remodel himself on what is best.
21. And for this reason also the words,
'that they may be one in Us,' have a right
sense. If, for instance, it were possible for
us to become as the Son in the Father, the
words ought to run, 'that they may be one
in Thee,' as the Son is in the Father; but,
as it is. He has not said this ; but by saying
♦ in Us ' He has pointed out the distance and
difference; that He indeed is alone in the
Father alone, as Only Word and Wisdom ; but
10 Acts iv. 4, 32. I Cf. ii. 23, 42. " SiaOia-ei, de Deer. 2,
cote 5 ; Ep. ad Man. (i) init. Hipp. c. Noet. 7. 3 Matt. xi. 29.
we in the Son, and through Him in the Father.
And thus speaking. He meant this only, ' By
Our unity may they also be so one with each
other, as We are one in nature and truth ;
for otherwise they could not be one, except
by learning unity in Us.' And that *in Us'
has this signification, we may learn from Paul,
who says, 'These things I have in a figure
transferred to myself and to Apollos, that ye
may learn in us not to be puffed up above
that is written ^' The words 'in Us ' then,
are not ' in the Father,' as the Son is in
Him ; but imply an example and image, in-
stead of saying, ' Let them learn of Us.' For
as Paul to the Corinthians, so is the oneness
of the Son and the Father a pattern and
lesson to all, by which they may learn, looking
to that natural unity of the Father and the
Son, how they themselves ought to be one
in spirit towards each other. Or if it needs
to account for the phrase otherwise, the words
' in Us ' may mean the same as saying, that in
the power of the Father and the Son they
may be one, speaking the same things^; for
without God this is impossible. And this
mode of speech also we may find in the divine
writings, as ' In God will we do great acts ; '
and 'In God I shall leap over the walls ;'
and 'In Thee will we tread down our ene-
miesl' Therefore it is plain, that in the Name
of Father and Son we shall be able, becoming
one, to hold firm the bond of charity. For,
dwelling still on the same thought, the Lord
says, 'And the glory which Thou gavest Me,
I have given to them, that they may be one as
We are one.' Suitably has He here too said, not,
' that they may be in Thee as I am,' but ' as
We are ; ' now he who says ' as 's, signifies not
identity, but an image and example of the
matter in hand.
22. The Word then has the real and true
identity of nature with the Father ; but to us
it is given to imitate it, as has been said ; for
He immediately adds, ' I in them and Thou
in Me ; that they may be made perfect in one.'
Here at length the Lord asks something greater
and more perfect for us; for it is plain that
the Word has come to be in us^, for He has put
on our body. 'And Thou Father in Me;'
'for I am Thy Word, and since Thou art
in Me, because I am Thy Word, and I in
them because of the body, and because of
Thee the salvation of men is perfected in Me,
therefore I ask that they also may become
one, according to the body that is in Me and
according to its perfection ; that they too may
I 1 Cor. iv. 6. » Vid. i Cor. i. 10. 3 Ps. Ix. 12 ; xviii. 29.
4 Ps. xliv. 5. Vid. Olear. de Styl. N. T. p. 4. (ed. 1702.) [Winer.
xlviii. a.] . , , . . ,
5 This remark which comes in abruptly is pursued presently,
vid. § 23. ' Ct de Deer. 31. fin.
4o6
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
become perfect, having oneness with It, and
having become one in It ; that, as if all were
carried by Me, all may be one body and one
spirit, and may grow up unto a perfect man ?.'
For we all, partaking of the Same, become
one body, having the one Lord in ourselves.
The passage then having this meaning, still
more plainly is refuted the heterodoxy of
Christ's enemies. I repeat it ; if He had
said simply and absolutely^ 'that they may
be one in Thee,' or 'that they and I may
be one in Thee,' God's enemies had had some
plea, though a shameless one ; but in fact He
has not spoken simply, but, ' As Thou, Father,
in Me, and I in Thee, that they may be all
one.' Moreover, using the word ' as,' He signi-
fies those who become distantly as He is in the
Father ; distantly not in place but in nature ;
for in place nothing is far from Gods, but
in nature only all things are far from Him.
And, as I said before, whoso uses the particle
'as' implies, not identity, nor equality, but
a pattern of the matter in question, viewed in
a certain respect ^°.
23. Indeed we may learn also from the
Saviour Himself, when He says, ' For as Jonah
was three days and three nights in the whale's
belly, so shall the Son of man be three days
and three nights in the heart of the earth ^'
For Jonah was not as the Saviour, nor did
Jonah go down to hades; nor was the whale
hades ; nor did Jonah, when swallowed up, bring
up those who had before been swallowed by
the whale, but he alone came forth, when the
whale was bidden. Therefore there is no
identity nor equality signified in the term ' as,'
but one thing and another; and it shews
a certain kind^ of parallel in the case of Jonah,
on account of the three days. In like manner
then we too, when the Lord says ' as,' neither
become as the Son in the Father, nor as the
Father is in the Son. For we become one as
the Father and the Son in mind and agree-
ment 3 of spirit, and the Saviour will be as
Jonah in the earth ; but as the Saviour is not
Jonah, nor, as he was swallowed up, so did the
Saviour descend into hades, but it is but a
parallel, in like manner, if we too become one,
as the Son in the Father, we shall not be as
7 Vid. Eph. iv. 13. 8 Cf. ii. 62, n. 13.
9 Vid. de Deer. 11, n. 5, which is explained by the present pas-
sage. When Ath. there says, ' without all in nature,' he must
mean as here, 'far from all things in nature.' S. Clement loc. cit.
gives the same explanation, as there noticed. It is observable
that the contr. Sab. Greg. 10 (which the Benedictines consider
not Athan.'s) speaks as de Deer, siipr. Eusebius says the same
thing, de Incorpor. i. init. ap. Sirm. Op. p. 68. vid. S. Ambros.
Quomodo creatura in Deo esse potest, &c. de Fid. i. 106. and
supr. § I, n. 10.
10 Vid. Glass. Phil. Sacr. iii. 5. can. 27. and Dettmars, de
Theol. Orig. ap. Lumper. Hist. Pair. t. 10, p. 212. Vid. also
supr. ii. 5S, n. 8. ' Matt. xii. 40.
» OMOioTijTa wws, and so at the end of 22. Kara, ti Beoipovfievov.
[A note, discussing certain views of Coplestone, Toplady, and
Blanco White, is omitted here.] 3 aviJi.<j>iovia, 10, n. a.
the Son, nor equal to Him ; for He and we are
but parallel. For on this account is i:he word
' as ' applied to us ; since things differing from
others in nature, become as they, when viewed
in a certain relations. Wherefore the Son
Himself, simply and without any condition
is in the Father ; for this attribute He has by
nature ; but for us, to whom it is not natural,
there is needed an image and example, that
He may say of us, * As Thou in Me, and I in
Thee.' ' And when they shall be so perfected,'
He says, ' then the world knows that Thou
hast sent Me, for unless I had come and borne
this their body, no one of them had been
perfected, but one and all had remained cor-
ruptible^ Work Thou then in them, O Father,
and as Thou hast given to Me to bear this,
grant to them Thy Spirit, that they too in
It may become one, and may be perfected
in Me. For their perfecting shews that Thy
Word has sojourned among them ; and the
world seeing them perfect and full of God 7,
will believe altogether that Thou hast sent Me,
and I have sojourned here. For whence is
this their perfecting, but that I, Thy Word,
having borne their body, and become man,
have perfected the work, which Thou gavest
Me, O Father? And the work is perfected,
because men, redeemed from sin, no longer
remain dead; but being deified ^ have in
each other, by looking at Me, the bond of
charity 9.'
24. We then, by way of giving a rude view
of the expressions in this passage, have been
led into many words, but blessed John will
shew from his Epistle the sense of the words^
concisely and much more perfectly than we
can. And he will both disprove the interpre-
tation of these irrehgious men, and will teach
how we become in God and God in us : and
how again we become One in Him, and how
far the Son differs in nature from us, and will
stop the Arians from any longer thinking that
they shall be as the Son, lest they hear it said
to them, ' Thou art a man and not God,' and
' Stretch not thyself, being poor, beside a rich
man ^' John then thus writes ; ' Hereby know
we that we dwell in Him and He in us,
because He hath given us of His Spirit^.'
Therefore because of the grace of the Spirit
which has been given to us, in Him v/e come
to be, and He in us 3 ; and since it is the
Spirit of God, therefore through His becoming
in us, reasonably are we, as having the Spirit,
considered to be in God, and thus is God in
us. Not then as the Son in the Father, so
5 Cyril in Joan. p.. 227, &c. * Cf. ii. 65, n. 3.
7 eeo<i>opovt>.ivov<;, ii. 70, n. I. ^ g 15. n. 3.
9 o-ufSeo-fioi/ T^s ayaTrqs, 2t. circ fin. * Ez. xxviii. 2 ;
Prov. xxiii. 4, LXX. =» 1 John iv. 13. 3 Cf. 22. n. 6,
DISCOURSE III.
407
also we become in the Father ; for the Son
does not merely partake the Spirit, that there-
fore He too may be in the Father ; nor does
He receive the Spirit, but rather He supplies
It Himself to all ; and the Spirit does not
unite the Word to the Father \ but rather the
Spirit receives from the Word. And the Son
is in the Father, as His own Word and
Radiance ; but we, apart from the Spirit, are
strange and distant from God, and by the
participation of the Spirit we are knit into the
Godhead; so that our being in the Father
is not ours, but is the Spirit's which is in us
and abides in us, while by the true confession
we preserve it in us, John again saying, 'Who-
soever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of
God, God dwelleth in him and he in Gods,'
What then is our likeness and equality to
the Son ? rather, are not the Arians confuted
on every side ? and especially by John, that
the Son is in the Father in one way, and we
become in Him in another, and that neither
we shall ever be as He, nor is the Word as
we; except they shall dare, as commonly, so
now to say, that the Son also by participation
of the Spirit and by improvement of conduct^
came to be Himself also in the Father. But here
again is an excess of irreligion, even in admit-
ting the thought. For He, as has been said,
gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit
hath. He hath from ? the Word.
25. The Saviour, then, saying of us, ' As
Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that
they too may be one in Us,' does not signify
that we were to have identity with Him ; for
this was shewn from the instance of Jonah ;
but it is a request to the Father, as John has
written, that the Spirit should be vouchsafed
through Him to those who believe, through
whom we are found to be in God, and in
this respect to be conjoined in Him. For since
the Word is in the Father, and the Spirit
is given from ^ the Word, He wills that we
should receive the Spirit, that, when we re-
ceive It, thus having the Spirit of the Word
which is in the Father, we too may be found
on account of the Spirit to become One
in the Word, and through Him in the Father.
And if He say, 'as we,' this again is only
a .request that such grace of the Spirit as is
given to the disciples may be without failure
or revocation ^ For what the Word has
by nature 3, as I said, in the Father, that
He wishes to be given to us through the
- 4 [i.e. not by grace] Vid. the end of this section and 25 init.
sujir. Or. i. 15. also Cyril Hier. Cat. xvi. 24. Epiph. Ancor. 67
init. Cyril in Joan. pp. 929, 930. 5 i John iv. 15.
6 ^eAriuxret Trpajcojs, and so ad Afros. Tpomav /SeAriucrit. 8,
Supr. Or. i. 37, 43. it is rather some external advance.
7 § 8, note 11. ' e/t. » Cf. ii. 63, n. 8.
3 Kara ^vaiv, supr. de Deer. 31, n. 5.
Spirit irrevocably; which the Apostle knowing,
said, ' Who shall separate us from the love of
Christ ? ' for ' the gifts of God ' and ' grace of
His calling are without repentance'*.' It is
the Spirit then which is in God, and not
we viewed in our own selves ; and as we are
sons and gods s because of the Word in us ^,
so we shall be in the Son and in the Father,
and we shall be accounted to have become
one in Son and in Father, because that that
Spirit is in us, which is in the Word which
is in the Father. When then a man falls
from the Spirit for any wickedness, if he
repent upon his fall, the grace remains irre-
vocably to such as are willing ^ ; otherwise he
who has fallen is no longer in God (because
that Holy Spirit and Paraclete which is in
God has deserted him), but the sinner shall be
in him to whom he has subjected himself, as
took place in Saul's instance ; for the Spirit of
God departed from him and an evil spirit was af-
flicting him^. God's enemies hearing this ought
to be henceforth abashed, and no longer to
feign themselves equal to God. But they
neither understand (for 'the irreligious,' he
saith, ' does not understand knowledge ' 9) nor
endure religious words, but find them heavy
even to hear.
CHAPTER XXVI.
Introductory to Texts from the Gospels
ON THE Incarnation.
Enumeration of texts still to be explained. Arians com-
pared to the Jews. We must recur to the Regula
Fidei. Our Lord did not come into, but became,
man, and therefore had the acts and affections of the
flesh. The same works divine and human. Thus
the flesh was purified, and men were made immortal.
Reference to i Pet. iv. I.
26. For behold, as if not wearied in their
words of irreligion, but hardened with Pha-
raoh, while they hear and see the Saviour's
human attributes in the Gospels % they have
utterly forgotten, like the Samosatene, the Son's
paternal Godhead 2, and with arrogant and
audacious tongue they say, ' How can the Son
be from the Father by nature, and be like Him
in essence, who says, ' All power is given unto
Me;' and 'The Father judgeth no man, but
hath committed all judgment unto the Son;'
and 'The Father loveth the Son, and hath given
all things into His hand ; he that believeth in
the Son hath everlasting life ; ' and again, ' All
things were delivered unto Me of My Father,
4 Rom. viii. 35 ; vid. xi. 29. S fleoi, Or. ii. 70, n. i.
6 Cf. ii. 59, n. 5. 7 Cf. C>-. i. 37> end. 8iSam.xvi.lt.
9 Prov. xxix. 7. voet, Ath. OT/injcret. e e \.
I This Oration alone, and this entirely, treats of texts from the
Gospels ; hitherto from the Gospel according to St. John, and now
chiefly from the first three. Hence they lead Athan. to treat
more distinctly of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and to anticipate
a refutation of both Nestorius and Eutyches. ^ § ii n. 13.
4o8
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
and no one knoweth the Father save the Son,
and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal
Him ;' and again, ' All that the Father hath
given unto Me, shall come to Me 3.' On this
they observe, ' If He was, as ye say. Son by
nature. He had no need to receive, but
He had by nature as a Son.' " Or how
can He be the natural and true Power of
the Father, who near upon the season of
the passion says, ' Now is My soul troubled,
and what shall I say? Father, save Me
from this hour; but for this came I unto
this hour. Father, glorify Thy Name. Then
came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have
both glorified it, and will glorify it again-*.'
And He said the same another time ; ' Father,
if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me ;'
and 'When Jesus had thus said, He was
troubled in spirit and testified and said, Verily,
verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall
betray Me s.' " Then these perverse men argue ;
' If He were Power, He had not feared,
but rather He had supplied power to others.'
Further they say ; ' If Pie were by nature the
true and own Wisdom of the Father, how is
it written, ' And Jesus increased in wisdom
and stature, and in favour with God and man^?'
In like manner, when He had come into the
parts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked the dis-
ciples whom men said that He was ; and when
He was at Bethany He asked where Lazarus
lay; and He said besides to His disciples,
' How many loaves have ye 7 ? How then,' say
they, ' is He Wisdom, who increased in wisdom,
and was ignorant of what He asked of others ?'
This too they urge ; " How can He be the
own Word of the Father, without whom the
Father never was, through whom He makes all
things, as ye think, who said upon the Cross,
' My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken
Me?' and before that had praved, 'Glorify
Thy Name,' and, ' O Father, glorify Thou Me
with the glory which I had with Thee before
the world was.' And He used to pray in the
deserts and charge His disciples to pray lest
they should enter into temptation; and, 'The
spirit indeed is willing,' He said, * but the flesh
is weak.' And, ' Of that day and that hour
knoweth no man, no, nor the Angels, neither
the Son^.' " Upon this again say the miserable
men, " If the Son were, according to your in-
terpretation 9, eternally existent with God, He
had not been ignorant of the Day, but had
known as Word; nor had been forsaken as
3 Matt, xxviii. i8 ; John v. 22 ; iii. 35, 36 ; Matt. xi. 27; John
vi. 37 ; "{A- §S 35—41- ■* John xii. 27, 28.
5 Matt. xxvi. 39 ; John xiii. 21 ; infr. §§ 53 — 58.
6 Luke ii. 52 ; infr. §§ 50—53. 7 Matt. xvi. 13 ; John xi.
34 ; Mark vi. 38 ; iii/r. § 27. 8 Matt, xxvii. 46 ; John xii.
28 ; xvii. 5 ; Matt. xxvi. 41 ; Mark xiii. 32 ; infr. §§ 42 — 50.
9 Siwoiac, ii. 44, a. 53, c. ; iv. 17, d. &c.
being co-existent ; nor had asked to receive
glory, as having it in the Father; nor would
have prayed at all ; for, being the Word, He
had needed nothing ; but since He is a creature
and one of things originate, therefore He thus
spoke, and needed what He had not ; for it is
proper to creatures to require and to need
what they have not."
27. This then is what the irreligious men
allege in their discourses ; and if they thus
argue, they might consistently speak yet more
daringly; 'Why did the Word become flesh
at all?' and they might add; 'For how
could He, being God, become man?' or,
' How could the Immaterial bear a body ? '
or they might speak with Caiaphas still
more Judaically, 'Wherefore at all did Christ,
being a man, make Himself God^?' for
this and the hke the Jews then muttered
when they saw, and now the Ario-maniacs
disbelieve when they read, and have fallen
away into blasphemies. If then a man should
carefully parallel the words of these and those,
he will of a certainty find them both arriving
at the same unbelief, and the daring of their
irreligion equal, and their dispute with us a
common one. For the Jews said ; ' How,
being a man, can He be God?' And the
Arians, ' If He were very God from God, how
could He become man ?' And the Jews were
offended then and mocked, saying, ' Had He
been Son of God, He had not endured the
Cross ;' and the Arians standing over against
them, urge upon us, ' How dare ye say that
He is the Word proper to the Father's Es-
sence, who had a body, so as to endure all
this ? ' Next, while the Jews sought to kill the
Lord, because He said that God was His
own Father and made Himself equal to Him,
as working what the Father works, the Arians
also, not only have learned to deny, both that
He is equal to God and that God is the own
and natural Father of the Word, but those
v/ho hold this they seek to kill. Again, whereas
the Jews said, ' Is not this the Son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know ? how then
is it that He saith, Before Abraham was, I am,
and I came down from heaven^?' the Arians
on the other hand make responses and say
conformably, ' How can He be Word or God
who slept as man, and wept, and inquired?'
Thus both parties deny the Eternity and God-
head of the Word in consequence of those
human attributes which the Saviour took on
Him by reason of that flesh which He bore.
28. Such error then being Judaic, and
Judaic after the mind of Judas the traitor,
I De Deer, i ; Or. i. 4. = John vi. 42 ; viii. 58.
3 €7raKouou<7-tv. Montfaucon (Onomasticon in t. 2 fin.) SO inter-
prets this word. vid. Apol. contr. Ar. 88. note 7.
DISCOURSE in.
4C9
let them openly confess themselves scholars
of Caiaphas and Herod, instead of cloking
Judaism with the name of Christianity, and
let them deny outright, as we have said
before, the Saviour's appearance in the flesh,
for this doctrine is akin to their heresy ; or if
they fear openly to Judaize and be circumcised*,
from servility towards Con Stan tius and for their
sake whom they have beguiled, then let them
not say what the Jews say ; for if they disown
the name, let them in fairness renounce the
doctrine. For we are Christians, O Arians,
Christians we ; our privilege is it well to know
the Gospels concerning the Saviour, and neither
with Jews to stone Him, if we hear of His
Godhead and Eternity, nor with you to stumble
at such lowly sayings as He may speak for our
sakes as man. If then you would become
Christians s, put off Arius's madness, and
cleanse ^ with the words of religion those ears
of yours which blaspheming has defiled ;
knowing that, by ceasing to be Arians, you
will cease also from the malevolence of the
present Jews. Then at once will truth shine
on you out of darkness, and ye will no longer
reproach us with holding two Eternals?, but
ye will yourselves acknowledge that the Lord
is God's true Son by nature, and not as merely
eternal ^, but revealed as co-existing in the
Father's eternity. For there are things called
eternal of which He is Framer ; for in the
twenty- third Psalm it is written, ' Lift up your
gates, O ye rulers, and be ye lift up, ye ever-
lasting gates 9;' and it is plain that through
Him these things were made ; but if even of
4 Or. i. 38. 5 Apol. Fug. 27, n. 10. 6 De Deer. 2, n. 9,
c. Sab. Greg. 6 fin.
7 Cf. de Deer. 25, n. 4. The peculiarity of the Catholic doc-
trine, as contrasted with the heresies on the subject of the Trinity,
is that it professes a mystery. It involves, not merely a contra-
diction in the terms used, which would be little, for we might
solve it by assigning different senses to the same word, or by
adding some limitation (e.g. if it were said that Satan was an
Angel and not an Angel, or man was mortal and immortal), but
an incongruity in the ideas which it introduces. To say that
the Father is wholly and absolutely the one infinitely-simple
God, and then that the Son is also, and yet that the Father
is eternally distinct from the Son, is to propose_ ideas which
we cannot harmonize together; and our reason is reconciled
to this state of the case only by the consideration (though
fully by means of it) that no idea of ours can embrace
the simple truth, so that we are obliged to separate it into por-
tions, and view it in aspects, and adumbrate it under many ideas, if
we are to make any approximation towards it at all ; as in mathe-
matics we approximate to a circle by means of a polygon, great as
is the dissimilarity between the two figures. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii.
§ 3 (2) b.l
8 oiJx air^ws aiSios, i.e. diStos is not one of our Lord's highest
titles, for things have it which the Son Himself has created, and
whom of course He precedes. Instead of two dcSia then, as the
Arians say, there are many aiSia; and our Lord's high title is not
this, but that He is ' the Son,' and thereby ' eternal in the Father's
eternity,' or there was not ever when He was not, and 'Image'
and ' Radiance.' The same line of thought is implied throughout
his proof of our Lord's eternity in Orat. 1. ch. 4 6. This is worth
remarking, as constituting a special distinction between ancient
and modern Scripture proofs of the doctrine, and as coinciding
with what was said supr. Or. ii. 1, n. 13, 44, n. i. His mode of
proof is still more brought out by what he proceeds to say
about the o-kottos, or general bearing or drift of the Christian faith,
and its availableness as a Ka.vtav or rule of interpretation.
9 Ps. xxiv. 7.
things everlasting He is the Framer, who of us
shall be able henceforth to dispute that He is
anterior to those things eternal, and in con-
sequence is proved to be Lord not so much
from His eternity, as in that He is God's Son ;
for being the Son, He is inseparable from the Fa-
ther, and never was there when He was not, but
He was always ; and being the Father's Image
and Radiance, He has the Father's eternity.
Now what has been briefly said above may
suffice to shew their misunderstanding of the
passages they then alleged ; and that of what
they now allege from the Gospels they certainly
give an unsound interpretation ^°, we may
easily see, if we now consider the scope " of
that faith which we Christians hold, and using
it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle
teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture.
For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this
scope, have wandered from the way of truth,
and have stumbled '^ on a stone of stumbling,
thinking otherwise than they should think.
29. Now the scope and character of Holy
Scripture, as we have often said, is this, — it
contains a double account of the Saviour ; that
He was ever God, and is the Son, being the
Father's Word and Radiance and Wisdom ^ ;
and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a
Virgin, Mary Bearer of God^, and was made
man. And this scope is to be found through-
out inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has
said, ' Search the Scriptures, for they are they
which testify of Me 3.' But lest I should ex-
ceed in writing, by bringing together all the
passages on the subject, let it suffice to men-
tion as a specimen, first John saying, ' In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God. The same
was in the beginning with God. All things
were made by Him, and without Him was
made not one thing 4;' next, 'And the Word
was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we
beheld His glory, the glory as of one Only-
begotten from the Father s;' and next Paul
writing, ' Who being in the form of God,
thought it not a prize to be equal with God,
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a
servant, being made in the likeness of men, and
being found in fashion like a man. He humbled
Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even
the death of the Cross ^.' Any one, beginning
with these passages and going through the
10 Cf. 26, n. 9. " <r/co7r6s, vid. 58. fin. '* Rom. ix. 32.
1 Or. i. 28, n. 5. . _ ...
2 Seotokov. vid. supr. 14, n. 3. Vid. S. Cyril's quotations in his
de Recta Fide-, p. 49, &c. ; and Cyril himself, Adv. Nest. i. p. 18.
Procl. Horn. i. p. 60. Theodor. ap. Cone. Eph. (p. 1529. Labbe.)
Cassian. Incarn. iv. 2. Hil Trin. ii. 25. Ambros. Virgin, i. n. 47.
Chrysost. ap. Cassian. Inearn. vii. 30. Jerom. in Ezek. 44 init.
Capreolus of Carthage, ap. Sirm. 0pp. t. i. p. 216. August. Serm.
29J, 6. Hippolytus, ap. Theod. Eran. i. p. 55, &c. Ignatius, Ep.
ad Eph. J. 3 John V. 39. ♦ lb. i. i— 3. S v. 14.
6 Phil. ii. 6—8.
4IO
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
whole of the Scripture upon the interpretation ?
which they suggest, will perceive how in the
beginning the Father said to Him, ' Let there
be hght,' and ' Let there be a firmament,' and
' Let us make man ^ ;' but in fulness of the
ages. He sent Him into the world, not that He
might judge the world, but that the world by
Him might be saved, and how it is written,
* Behold, the Virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his
Name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted,
is God with us 9.'
30. The reader then of divine Scripture may
acquaint himself with these passages from the
ancient books ; and from the Gospels on
the other hand he will perceive that the
Lord became man ; for ' the Word,' he
says, ' became flesh, and dwelt among us '.'
And He became man, and did not come
into man ; for this it is necessary to know,
lest perchance these irrehgious men fall into
this notion also, and beguile any into thinking,
that, as in former times the Word was used
to come into each of the Saints, so now He
sojourned in a man, hallowing him also, and
manifesting^" Himself as in the others. For if
it were so, and He only appeared in a man, it
were nothing strange, nor had those who saw
Him been startled, saying. Whence is He?
and wherefore dost Thou, being a man, make
Thyself God? for they were familiar with
the idea, from the words, 'And the Word of
the Lord came ' to this or that of the Prophets ^.
But now, since the Word of God, by whom all
things came to be, endured to become also
Son of man, and humbled Himself, taking
a servant's form, therefore to the Jews the
Cross of Christ is a scandal, but to us Christ
is * God's power ' and ' God's wisdom 3 • ' for
' the Word,' as John says, ' became flesh ' (it
being the custom ^ of Scripture to call man by
the name of ' flesh,' as it says by Joel the
Prophet, ' I will pour out My Spirit upon all
flesh ; ' and as Daniel said to Astyages, ' I
do not worship idols made with hands, but
the Living God, who hath created the heaven
and the earth, and hath sovereignty over all
flesh 5 ; ' for both he and Joel call mankind
flesh).
31. Of old time He was wont to come to
the Saints individually, and to hallow those
who rightly ^ received Him ; but neither, when
they were begotten was it said that He had be-
come man, nor, when they suffered, was it said
that He Himself suffered. But when He.came
among us from Mary once at the end of the
7 Cf. 26, n. 9. 8 Gen. i. 3, 6, 26 ; de Syn. 28 (14).
9 Matt. i_. 23. I John i. 14. 2 Ad E^ict. 11, ad Max. 2.
3 I Cor. i. 24. 4 Infr. iv. 33 init. S Joel ii. 28 ; Bel
and Dr. i^ ^ Or. i. 39, n. 4.
ages for the abolition of sin (for so it was
pleasing to the Father, to send His own Son
' made of a woman, made under the Law '),
then it is said, that He took flesh and became
man, and in that flesh He suffered for us (as
Peter says, 'Christ therefore having suffered
for us in the flesh ^ '), that it might be shewn,
and that all might believe, that whereas He
was ever God, and hallowed those to whom
He came, and ordered all things according to
the Father's wilP, afterwards for our sakes
He became man, and ' bodily^,' as the Apostle
says, the Godhead dwelt in the flesh ; as much
as to say, ' Being God, He had His own body,
and using this as an instrument'", He became
man for our sakes.' And on account of this,
the properties of the flesh are said to be His,
since He was in it, such as to hunger, to
thirst, to suffer, to weary, and the like, of
which the flesh is capable ; while on the other
hand the works proper to the Word Himself,
such as to raise the dead, to restore sight to
the blind, and to cure the woman with an
issue of blood, He did through His own
body". And the Word bore the infirmities
of the flesh, as His own, for His was the
flesh ; and the flesh ministered to the works
of the Godhead, because the Godhead was
in it, for the body was God's". And well has
7 Gal. iv. 4 ; I Pet. iv. 1.
8 Kara to ^ovArj^a. vid. Orai. I. 63. infr. § 63, notes. Cf. supr,
ii. 31, n. 7, for passages in which Ps. xxxiii. g. is taken to shew
the unity of Father and Son from the instantaneousness of the
accomplishment upon the willing, as well as the Son's existence
before creation. Hence the Son not only works Kara to (SouAij^xa,
but is the jSovAr) of the Father, ibid, note 8. For the contrary
Arlan view, even when it is highest, vid. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii.
3. quoted ii. 64, n. 5. In that passage the Father's vH)^i.a^a. are
spoken of, a word common with the Arians. Euseb. ibid, p 75, a.
de Latid. Const, p. 528, Eunom. Apol. 20 fin. The word is
used of the Son's command given to the creation, in Athan. contr.
Gent. e.g. 42, 44, 46. S. Cyril. Hier. frequently as the Arians,
uses it of the Father. Catech. x. 5, xi. passim, xv. 25, &c. The
difference between the orthodox and Arian views on this point
is clearly drawn out by S. Basil contr. Eunom. i. 21.
9 Col. ii. 9.
10 TovTcj) xpw/nevos opyivw infr. 42. and opyavoi' Trpbs ttji/ eve'p-
•yeiov ical Trji' eKAa/on^iv t^5 &e6Tr)TOS. 53, This was a word much
used afterwards by the ApoUinarians, who looked on our Lord's
manhood as merely a manifestation of God. vid. Or. ii. 8, n. 3.
vid. crxrjua opyaviKov in ApoU. i. 2, 15. vid. a parallel in Euseb.
Laud. Const, p. 536. However, it ,is used freely by Athan.
e.g. infr. 35, 53. Incam. 8, 9, 41, 43, 44. This use of opyayoi'
must not be confused with its heretical application to our
Lord's Divine Nature, vid. Basil de SJ>. S. n. 19 fin. of
which de Syn. 27 (3). It may be added that <|)ai/epujcrts is a
Nestorian as well as Eutychian idea ; Facund. Tr. Cap. ix.
2, 3. and the Syrian use ol par sop a Asseman. B. O. t. 4. p. 219.
Thus both parties really denied the Atonement, vid. supr. Or. i.
60, n. 5 ; ii. 8, n. 4.
" Orat. iv. 6. and fragfn. ex Euthym. p. 1275. ed. Ben. This
interchange [of language] is called theologically the aj-Tt'Socris or
communicatio i6i(ofidT(of. Nyssen. in Apoll. t. 2. pp. 697, 8. Leon.
Ef. 28, 51. Ambros. defid. ii. 58. Nyssen. de Beat. p. 767. Cassian.
Incarn. vi. 22. Aug. contr. Serm. Ar. c. 8 init. Plain and easy
as such statements seem, they are of the utmost importance in the
Nestorian and Eutychian controversies.
18 fleoO ^v <TOiit,a. also ad Adelpk. 3. ad Max. 2. and so r^v
TTTtax^vcaa'av <l>va'iv Ogov oAtjv yevoixevrjv, c. Apoll. li. 11. to iraSoy
Toii Aoyou. ibid. 16, c. To.p^ tou Adyou. infr. 34. crufia <70<|)i'as infr.
53. also Or. ii. 10, n. 7. Traflos XpicrTou tow 6eou fiov. Ignat. Rom.
6. 6 6eb; Tti-nov6tv. Melit. ap. Anast. Hodeg. 12. Dei passiones.
TertuU. de Cam. Christ. 5. Dei interemptores. ibid, caro Deitatis.
Leon. Serm. 6s fin. Deus mortuus et sepultus. Vigil, c. Eut. ii.
p. 502. vid. supr. Or. i. 45, n. 3. Yet Athan. objects to the phrase,
' God suffered in the flesh,' i.e. as used by the ApoUinarians. vid.
DISCOURSE III.
411
the Prophet said 'carried '3;' and has not said,
' He remedied our infirmities,' lest, as being
external to the body, and only healing it,
as He has always done. He should leave men
subject still to death ; but He carries our
infirmities, and He Himself bears our sins,
that it might be shewn that He has become man
for us, and that the body which in Him bore
them, was His own body; and, while He
received no hurt ^'^ Himself by ' bearing our
sins in His body on the tree,' as Peter speaks,
we men were redeemed from our own affec-
tions '5, and were filled with the righteous-
ness '^ of the Word.
32. Whence it was that, when the flesh
suffered, the Word was not external to it ; and
therefore is the passion said to be His : and
when He did divinely His Father's works, the
flesh was not external to Him, but in the body
itself did the Lord do them. Hence, when
made man. He said', ' If I do not the works of
the Father, believe Me not; but if I do,
though ye believe not Me, believe the works,
that ye may know that the Father is in He
and I in Him.' And thus when there was
need to raise Peter's wife's mother, who was
sick of a fever, He stretched forth His hand
humanly, but He stopped the illness divinely.
And in the case of the man blind from the
birth, human was the spittle which He gave
forth from the flesh, but divinely did He
open the eyes through the clay. And in the
case of Lazarus, He gave forth a human voice,
as man ; but divinely, as God, did He raise
Lazarus from the dead^ These things were
so done, were so manifested, because He had
a body, not in appearance, but in truth 3 ; and
it became the Lord, in putting on human
flesh, to put it on whole with the affections
proper to it; that, as we say that the body
was His own, so also we may say that
the affections of the body were proper to
cantr. Apoll. ii. 13 fin. [Cf. Harnack, Dogms. ed. 1. vol. i. pp.
131,628. notes.] 13 Is. liii. 4.
14 ovhiv e^KaiTTeTO. (i Pet. ii. 24.) Cf. de Incarn. 17, 54, 34 ;
Euseb. de Laud. Const, p. 536. and 538. also Deni. Evang. vii.
p. 348. Vigil, contr. Eutych. ii. p. 503. (B. P. ed. 1624.) Anast.
Hodeg. c. 12. p. 220 (ed. 1606.) also p. 222. Vid. also the beautiful
passage in Pseudo-Basil : Horn, in Sanct. Chrht. Gen. (t. 2.
p. 596. ed. Ben.) also Rufin. in Symb. 12. Cyril. Quod unus est
Christiis. p. 776. Damasc F. O. iii. 6 fin. August. Serm. 7. p. 26
init. ed. 1842. Suppl. 1. '5 TTaeioy, vid. § 33, n. 2.
16 Orat. i. 51.
I John X. 37, 38. vid. Incarn. 18. Cf. Leo, Serm. 54, 2.
' Suscepit nos in suam proprietatem ilia natiira, qujE necnostris
sua, nee suis nostra consumerec, &c.' Serin. 72, p. 286, vid. also
Ep. 165, 6. Serm. 30, 5. Cyril Cat. iv. 9. Amphiloch. ap. Theod.
Eran. i. p. 66. also pp. 30, 87, 8. ed. 16 14.
a Cf. Leo's Tome {Ej>. 28.) 4. ' When He touched the leper, it
was the man that was seen ; but something beyond man, when He
cleansed him, &c.' Arabros. Episi. i. 46, n. 7. Hil. Trin. x. 23 fin.
vid. in/r. 56 note, and S. Leo's extracts in his Ep. 165. Chrysol.
Serm. 34 and 35. Paul. ap. Cone. Eph. (p. 1620. Labbe.)_ These
are instances of what is theologically called the SearSpiKr) eve'pyeta
[a condemned formula], i.e. the union of the energies of both
Natures in one act. .
3 /HI) <l>avTa<rCa a\\' a\ri0w. vid. Incarn. 18, d. ad Eptct. 7, c.
The passage is quoted by S. Cyril. Apol. adv. Orient, p. 194.
Him alone, though they did not touch Him
according to His Godhead. If then the body
had been another's, to him too had been the
affections attributed ; but if the flesh is the
Word's (for ' the Word became flesh '), of
necessity then the affections also of the flesh
are ascribed to Him, whose the flesh is. And
to whom the affections are ascribed, such
namely as to be condemned, to be scourged,
to thirst, and the cross, and death, and the
other infirmities of the body, of Him too is
the triumph and the grace, For this cause
then, consistently and fittingly such affections
are ascribed not to another +, but to the Lord ;
that the grace also may be from Him s, and
that we may become, not worshippers of any
other, but truly devout towards God, because
we invoke no originate thing, no ordinary ^
man, but the natural and true Son from God,
who has become man, yet is not the less Lord
and God and Saviour.
33. Who will not admire this ? or who will
not agree that such a thing is truly divine ?
for if the works of the Word's Godhead had
not taken place through the body, man
had not been deified ; and again, had not
the properties of the flesh been ascribed to
the Word, man had not been thoroughly de-
livered from them ' ; but tliough they had
ceased for a little while, as I said before, still
sin had remained in him and corruption, as
was the case with mankind before Him ; and
for this reason : — Many for instance have been
made holy and clean from all sin ; nay, Jere-
miah was hallowed ^ even from the womb, and
John, while yet in the womb, leapt tor joy at
the voice of Mary Bearer of God 3 ; never-
theless 'death reigned from Adam to Moses,
even over those that had not sinned after
the similitude of Adam's transgression ■♦ ; ' and
thus man remained mortal and corruptible
as before, hable to the affections proper to
their nature. But now the Word having be-
come man and having appropriated s what
4 ou»: aXKov, oAAi Toii Kvpiov and SO oi/c irepov Tij'09, Incarn,
18 ; also Orat. i. 45. szipr. p. 244. and Orat. iv. 35. Cyril Thes.
p. 197. and Auathem. 11. who defends the phrase against the
Orientals. S Cf. Procl. ad Artuen. p. 615, ed. 1630.
6 KOiuov opposed to tStoi'. vid. infr. § 51, Cyril Epp. p. 33, e.
communem, Ambros. de Fid. i. 94.
I Or. i. 5, n. 5, ii. 56, n. 5, 68, n. i, tn/r. note 6.
a Vid. Jer. i. 5. And so S. Jerome, S. Leo, &c., as men-
tioned in Corn, a Lap. in loc. S. Jerome implies a similar gift
in the ca=e of Asella, ad Marcell. {Ep. xxiv. 2.) And so S. John
Baptist, Maldon. in Luc. i. 16. It is remarkable that no ancient
writer (unless indeed we except S. Austin), [Patrol. Lat. xlvii.
1144?] refers to the instance of S. Mary ;— perhaps from the
circumstance of its not being mentioned in Scripture.
3 deoToKov. For instances of this word vid. Alexandr. E^, ad
A lex. ap. Theodor. H. E. i. 4. p. 745. (al. 20). Athan. (supra) ; CyriL
Cat. X. 19. Julian Imper. ap. Cyril c. y«A viii. p. 262. Amphiloch.
Orat. 4. p. 41- (if Amphil.)ed. 1644. Nyssen. Ep. ad Enstatk. p.
1093. Chrysost. apud. Suicer Symb. p. 240. Greg. Naz. Orat
29, 4 Ep. 181. p. 85. ed.Ben. Antiochus and Ammon. ap. Cyril.
de Recta Fid. pp. 49, 50. Pseudo-Dion, contr. Samos. 5,
Pseudo-Basil. Horn. t. 2. p. 600 ed. Ben. 4 Rom. v. 14.
5 ifitojroiou/xeVov. vid. also [Incar. 8.] in/r. § 38. ad Epict. 6, e.
fragm. ex Euthym. (t. i. p. 1275. ed. Ben.) Cyril, mjoann. p. 131, a.
412
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
pertains to the flesh, no longer do these
things touch the body, because of the Word
who has come in it, but they are de-
stroyed^ by Him, and henceforth men no longer
remain sinners and dead according to their
proper affections, but having risen according
to the Word's power, they abide 7 ever immor-
tal and incorruptible. Whence also, whereas
the flesh is born of Mary Bearer of God^, He
Himself is said to have been born, who fur-
nishes to others an origin of being; in
order that He may transfer our origin into
Himself, and we may no longer, as mere
earth, return to earth, but as being knit into
the Word from heaven, may be carried to
heaven by Him. Therefore in like manner
not without reason has He transferred to Him-
self the other affections of the body also ; that
we, no longer as being men, but as proper
to the Word, may have share in eternal life.
For no longer according to our former
origin in Adam do we die ; but henceforward
our origin and all infirmity of flesh being
transferred to the Word, we rise from the
earth, the curse from sin being removed, be-
cause of Him who is in us9, and who has
become a curse for us. And with reason ;
for as we are all from earth and die in Adam,
so being regenerated from above of water
and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened ;
the flesh being no longer earthly, but being
henceforth made Word*°, by reason of God's
Word who for our sake ' became flesh.'
34. And that one may attain to a more
exact knowledge of the impassibility of the
Word's nature and of the infirmities ascribed
to Him because of the flesh, it will be well
to listen to the blessed Peter ; for he will be
a trustworthy witness concerning the Saviour.
He writes then in his Epistle thus ; ' Christ
then having suffered for us in the flesh ^'
Therefore also when He is said to hunger and
For ISiov, which occurs so frequently here, vid. Cyril. Anaihein. ii.
And oiKec'coTat. contr. Apoll. ii. i6, e. Cyril. Schol. de Incarn. p.
782, d. Concil. Eph.-p^. 1644, d. 1697, b.(Hard.) Damasc. i^. O. in.
3. p. 208. ed. Ven. Vid. Petav. de Ificarn. iv. 15.
6 Vid. Or. i. §§ 45, 46, ii. 65, note. Vid. also iv. 33. Incarn. c.
Arian. 12. contr. Apoll. i. 17. ii. 6. ' Since God the Word willed to
annul the passions, whose end is death, and His deathless nature
was not capable of them . . . He is made flesh of the Virgin, in
the way He knoweth, &'c.' Procl. ad Arnien. p. 616. also Leo.
Serm. 22. pp. 69. 71. Seriri. 26. p. 88. Nyssen contr. Apoll. t. 2 p.
696. Cyril. Epp. p. 138, 9. in Joan. p. 95, Chrysol. Serm. 148.
7 ii. 6g, n. 3, &c.
8 eeoTOKou. supr. 14, n. 3. For 'mater Dei' vid. before S.
Leo, Ambros. de Virg. ii. 7. Cassian. Iticarn. ii. 5. vii. 25.
Vincent. Lir. Commonit. 21. It is obvious that SeOToxos, though
framed as a test against Nestorians, was equally effective against
ApoUinarians [?] and Eutychians, who denied that our Lord had
taken human flesh at all, as is observed by Facundus Def. Triuvi.
Cap. i. 4. _ Cf. Cyril. Epp. pp. 106, 7. Yet these sects, as the
Arians, maintained the term. vid. supr. Or. ii. 8, n. 5.
9 ii. 59 n._5.
10 AoywSei'oTjs Tf)S <ropKos. This strong term is here applied to
human nature generally ; Damascene speaks of the Aoycoo-ts of the
flesh, but he means especially our Lord's flesh. F. O. iv. 18. p.
286. (Ed. Ven.) for the words Beova-dai, &c. vid. supr. ii. 70, n. i.
» I Pet. iv. I.
thirst and to toil and not to know, and to
sleep, and to weep, and to ask, and to flee,
and to be born, and to deprecate the cup, and
in a word to undergo all that belongs to the
flesh 2, let it be said, as is congruous, in each
case, 'Christ then hungering and thirsting "for
us in the flesh ; " ' and ' saying He did not
know, and being buffeted, and toiling " for us
in the flesh ; " ' and ' being exalted too, and
born, and growing " in the flesh ; " ' and ' fear-
ing and hiding " in the flesh ; " ' and ' saying,
" If it be possible let this cup pass from Me3,"
and being beaten, and receiving, "for us in the
flesh ; " ' and in a word all such things ' for us
in the flesh.' For on this account has the
Apostle himself said, ' Christ then having suf-
fered,' not in His Godhead, but ' for us in the
flesh,' that these affections may be acknow-
ledged as, not proper to the very Word by
nature, but proper by nature to the very flesh.
Let no one then stumble at what belongs
to man, but rather let a man know that
in nature the Word Himself is impassible, and
yet because of that flesh which He put on,
these things are ascribed to Him, since they
are proper to the flesh, and the body itself
is proper to the Saviour. And while He Him-
self, being impassible in nature, remains as He
is, not harmed + by these affections, but rather
obliterating and destroying them, men, their
passions as if changed and abolished s in
the Impassible, henceforth become themselves
also impassible and free^ from them for ever,
as John taught, saying, 'And ye know that
He was manifested to take away our sins,
and in Him is no sin?.' And this being so,
no heretic shall object, 'Wherefore .rises the
flesh, being by nature mortal? and if it rises,
why not hunger too and thirst, and suffer,
and remain mortal? for it came from the
earth, and how can its natural condition pass
from it ? ' since the flesh is able now to make
answer to this so contentious heretic, ' I am
from earth, being by nature mortal, but after-
wards I have become the Word's flesh, and He
' carried ' my affections, though He is without
them ; and so I became free from them, being
no more abandoned to their service because
of the Lord who has made me free from them.
For if you object to my being rid of that
corruption which is by nature, see that you ob-
ject not to God's Word having taken my form
» Cf. Chrysost. in Joann, Horn, 67. 1 and 2. Cyril de Red.
Fid. p. 18. ' As a man He doubts, as a man He is troubled ; it
is not His Power (virtus) that is troubled, not His Godhead, but
His soul, &c.' Ambros. de Fid. ii. n. 56. vid. a beautiful passage
in S. Basil's Hotn. iv. 5. in which he insists on our Lord's having
wept to shew us how to weep neither too much nor ioo little.
3 Mat. xxvi. 39.
4 ^AajTTO/aecos, § 31, n. 15. 5 Cf. 33, n. 6.
6 Vid. Or ii. 56, n. 5. Cf. Cyril, de Red. Fid. p. 18.
7 I John iii. 5.
DISCOURSE III.
413
of servitude ; for as the Lord, putting on the
body, became man, so we men are deified
by the Word as being taken to Him through
His flesh, and henceforward inherit hfe ever-
lasting.'
35. These points we have found it necessary
first to examine, that, when we see Him doing
or saying aught divinely through the instru-
ment^ of His own body, we may know that
He so works, being God, and also, if we see
Him speaking or suffering humanly, we may
not be ignorant that He bore flesh and be-
came man, and hence He so acts and so
speaks. For if we recognise what is proper
to each, and see and understand that both
these things and those are done by One^,
we are right in our faith, and shall never stray.
But if a man looking at what is done divinely
by the Word, deny the body, or looking at
what is proper to the body, deny the Word's
presence in the flesh, or from what is human
entertain low thoughts concerning the Word,
such a one, as a Jewish vintners, mixing
water with the wine, shall account the Cross
an offence, or as a Gentile, will deem the
preaching folly. This then is what happens
to God's enemies the Arians ; for looking
at what is human in the Saviour, they have
judged Him a creature. Therefore they ought,
looking also at the divine works of the Word,
to deny4 the origination of His body, and
henceforth to rank themselves with Mani-
cheess. But for them, learn they, however
tardily, that ' the Word became flesh ; ' and
let us, retaining the general scope ^ of the
faith, acknowledge that what they interpret
ill, has a right interpretation '.
CHAPTER XXVII.
Texts Explained ; Tenthlv, Matthew
xi. 27 : John iii. 35, &c.
These texts intended to preclude the Sabellian notion
of the Son ; they fall in with the Catholic doctrine
concerning the Son ; they are explained by ' so ' in
John V. 26. (Anticipation of the next chapter.)
Again they are used with reference to our Lord's
human nature ; for our sake, that we might receive
and not lose, as receiving in Him. And consistently
■with other parts of Scripture, which shew that He
had the power, &c., before He received it. He was
God and man, and His actions are often at once
divine and human.
I Cf. 31, n. 10.
= Vid. infr. 39—41. and 56, n. 7. Cf. Procl. ad Armen. p. 615.
Leo's Tome {E^. 28, 3) also Hil. Triii. i\. 11 lin. ' Vugit infans,
fed in coelo est, &c.' ibid x. 54. Ambros. de Fid. ii. 77. Erat
vermis in cruce sed dimittebat peccata. Non habebat speciem,
sed plenitudinem divinitatis, &c. Id. Epist. i. 46, n. 5. Theoph.
Ep. Pasch. 6. ap. Cone. Epiies. p. 1404. Hard.
3 Vid. Is. i. 22, LXX. ; Or. ii. 80 ; de Deer. 10.
4 Thus heresies are partial views of the truth, starting from
some truth which they exaggerate, and disowning and protesting
against other truth, which they fancy inconsistent with it. vid.
%upr. Or. i. 26, n. 2. 5 De Syn. 33 ; Or. i. 8.
6 Cf. § 28, n. 11. 7Cf. §30, n. 7.
35 {continued). For, ' The Father loveth the
Son, and hath given all things into His hand j'
and, ' All things were given unto Me of My
Father ;' and, ' I can do nothing of Myself
but as I hear, I judge ^ ; ' and the like passages
do not shew that the Son once had not these
prerogatives— (for had not He eternally what
the Father has, who is the Only Word and
Wisdom of the Father in essence, who also
says, ' All that the Father hath are Mine ','
and what are Mine, are the Father's ? for if
the things of the Father are the Son's and the
Father hath them ever, it is plain that what
the Son hath, being the Fathers, were ever in
the Son), — not then because once He had
them not, did He say this, but because, whereas
the Son hath eternally what He hath, yet He
hath them from the Father.
36. For lest a man, perceiving that the Son
has all that the Father hath, from the
exact likeness and identity of that He hath,
should wander into the irreligion of Sabellius,
considering Him to be the Father, therefore
He has said ' Was given unto Me,' and ' I
received,' and ' Were delivered to Me %' only to
shew that He is not the Father, but the
Father's Word, and the Eternal Son, who
because of His likeness to the Father, has
eternally what He has from Him, and because
He is the Son, has from the Father what He
has eternally. Moreover that ' Was given ' and
'Were delivered,' and the like, do not impairs the
Godhead of the Son, but rather shew Him to
be truly ^ Son, we may learn from the passages
themselves. For if all things are delivered
unto Him, first, He is other than that all
which He has received ; next, being Heir of
all things. He alone is the Son and proper
according to the Essence of the Father.
For if He were one of all, then He were not
' heir of all s,' but every one had received ac-
cording as the Father willed and gave. But
now, as receiving all things, He is other than
them all, and alone proper to the Father,
Moreover that 'Was given' and 'Were de-
livered' do not shew that once He had them not,
we may conclude from a similar passage, and in
like manner concerning them all ; for the
Saviour Himself says, ' As the Father hath life
in Himself, so hath He given also to the Son
to have life in Himself ^' Now from the
words ' Hath given,' He signifies that He is
not the Father; but in saying 'so,' He shews
the Son's natural likeness and propriety to-
wards the Father. If then once the Father
had not, plainly the Son once had not ; for as
8 John iii. 35 ; Matt. xi. 27 ; John v. 30.
I John xvi. 15 ; xvii. 10.
a John X. 18 ; Mat. xxviii. 18. 3 Or. I 4$; ad Adelph. 4
4 Or. ii. 19, n. 3. 5 Heb. i. 2. ' John v. 26.
414
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
the Father, 'so' also the Son has. But if this
is irreligious to say, and religious on the con-
trary to say that the Father had ever, is it not
unseemly in them when the Son says that,
' as ' the Father has, ' so ' also the Son has, to
say that He has not ' so 7,' but otherwise ?
Rather then is the Word faithful, and all things
which He says that He has received. He has
always, yet has from the Father ; and the
Father indeed not from any, but the Son from
the Father. For as in the instance of the
radiance, if the radiance itself should say, ' All
places the light hath given me to enlighten,
and I do not enlighten from myself, but as the
light wills,' yet, in saying this, it does not
imply that it once had not, but it means, ' I
am proper to the light, and all things of the
light are mine ;' so, and much more, must we
understand in the instance of the Son. For
the Father, having given all things to the Son,
in the Son still ^ hath all things ; and the Son
having, still the Father hath them ; for the
Son's Godhead is the Father's Godhead, and
thus the Father in the Son exercises His Provi-
dence 9 over all things.
37. And while such is the sense of expres-
sions like these, those which speak humanly con-
cerning the Saviour admit of a religious
meaning also. For with this end have we
examined them beforehand, that, if we should
hear Him asking where Lazarus is laid % or
when He asks on coming into the parts of
Caesarea, 'Whom do men say that I am ?' or,
' How many loaves have ye ? ' and, ' What will
ye that I shall do unto you ^ ? ' we may know,
from what has been already said, the right 3
7 Or. ii. 55, n. 8. ^
8 traXw. vid. Or. 5. 15, n. 6. Thus iteration is not duplication
in respect to God ; though how this is, is the inscrutable Mystery
of the Trinity in Unity. Nothing can be named which the Son
is in Himself, as distinct from the Father ; we are but told His
relation towards the Father, and thus the sole meaning we are
able to attach to Person is a relation ot the Son towards the
Father ; and distinct from and beyond that relation, He is but the
One God, who is also the Father. This sacred subject has been
touched upon supr. Or. iii. 9, n. 8. In other words, there is an
indestructible essential relation existing in the One Indivisible
infinitely simple God, such as to constitute Him, viewed on each
side of that relation (what in human language we cull) Two (and
in like manner Three), yet without the notion of number really
coming in. When we speak of ' Person," we mean nothing more
than the One God in substance, viewed relatively to Him the One
God, as viewed in that Correlative which we therefore call another
Person. These various statements are not here intended to
explain, but to bring home to the mind -what it is which faith
receives. We say _' Father, Son, and Spirit,' but when we would
abstract^ a general idea of Them in order to number Them, our
abstraction really does hardly more than carry us back to the One
Substance. Such seems the meaning of such passages as Basil.
Ep. Z,i; de Sp. S. c. 18 ; Chrysost. in Joan. Horn. ii. 3 fin. ' In
respect oi the Adorable and most Royal Trinity, 'first' and
' second ' have no place ; for the Godhead is higher than number
and times.' Isid. Pel. Ep. 3, 18. Eulog. ap. Phot. 230. p. 864.
August, in Joan. 39, 3 and 4; de Trin. v. 10. 'Unity is not
number, but is itselt the principle of all things.' Ambros. de Fid.
i. n. 19. ' A trine numeration then does not make number, which
they rather run into, who make some difference between the
Three.' Boelh. Trin. anus Deus, p. g^g. The last remark is found
in Naz. Orat. 31, 18. Many of these references are taken from
Thomassin de Trin. 17. 9 §§ 11, n. 4, 15, n. 11.
1 Vid. infr. 46 ; John xi. 34.
2 Matt. xvi. 13 ; Mark vi. 38 ; Matt. xx. 32. 3 ii. 44, n. 1.
sense of the passages, and may not stumble
as Christ's enemies the Arians. First then we
must put this question to the irreligious, why
they consider Him ignorant? for one who
asks, does not for certain ask from ignorance ;
but it is possible for one who knows, still to
ask concerning what He knows. Thus John
was aware that Christ, when asking, ' How
many loaves have ye ?' was not ignorant, for
he says, ' And this He said to prove him, for
He Himself knew what He would do ^ .' But
if He knew what He was doing, therefore not
in ignorance, but with knowledge did He ask.
From this instance we may understand similar
ones ; that, when the Lord asks. He does not
ask in ignorance, where Lazarus lies, nor again,
whom men do say that He is ; but knowing
the thing which He was asking, aware what He
was about to do. And thus with ease is their
clever point exploded ; but if they still persist s
on account of His asking, then they must be
told that in the Godhead indeed ignorance is
not, but to the flesh ignorance is proper, as
has been said. And that this is really so,
observe how the Lord who inquired where
Lazarus lay, Himself said, when He was not
on the spot but a great way off, ' Lazarus is
dead ^,' and where he was dead ; and how that
He who is considered by them as ignorant, is
He Himself who foreknew the reasonings of
the disciples, and was aware of what was in
the heart of each, and of ' what was in man,'
and, what is greater, alone knows the Father
and says, * I in the Father and the Father in
Me 7.'
38. Therefore this is plain to every one, that
the flesh indeed is ignorant, but the Word Him-
self, considered as the Word, knows all things
even before they come to be. For He did not,
when He became man, cease to be God^ ; nor,
whereas He is God does He shrink from what
is man's ; perish the thought ; but rather, being
God, He has taken to Him the flesh, and being
in the flesh deifies the flesh. For as He
asked questions in it, so also in it did He raise
the dead ; and He shewed to all that He who
quickens the dead and recalls the soul, much
more discerns the secret of all. And He knew
where Lazarus lay, and yet He asked ; for the
All-holy Word of God, who endured all things
for our sakes, did this, that so carrying our
ignorance. He might vouchsafe to us the know-
ledge of His own only and true Father, and of
Himself, sent because of us for the salvation of
all, than which no grace could be greater.
4 John vi. 6.
5 Petavius refers to this passage in proof that S. Athanasius did
not in his real judgment consider our Lord ignorant, but went on to
admit it in argument after having first given his own real opinion.
vid. § 45, n. 2. _ 6 John xi. 14.
7 John ii. 25 ; xiv. 11. » Or. ii. 8, n. 3.
DISCOURSE III.
415
When then the Saviour uses the words which
they allege in their defence, ' Power is given to
Me,' and, 'Glorify Thy Son,' and Peter says,
* Power is given unto Him,' we understand all
these passages in the same sense, that humanly
because of the body He says all this. For
though He had no need, nevertheless He is said
to have received what He received humanly,
that on the other hand, inasmuch as the Lord
has received, and the grant is lodged with Him,
the grace may remain sure. For while mere
man receives, he is liable to lose again (as was
shewn in the case of Adam, for he received
and he lost=), but that the grace may be
irrevocable, and may be kept sure 3 by men,
therefore He Himself appropriates 4 the gift ;
and He says that He has received power, as
man, which He ever had as God, and He says,
' Glorify Me,' who glorifies others, to shew that
He hath a flesh which has need of these things.
Wherefore, when the flesh receives, since that
which receives is in Him, and by taking it He
hath become man, therefore He is said Himself
to have received.
39. If then (as has many times been said)
the Word has not become man, then ascribe to
the Word, as you would have it, to receive, and
to need glory, and to be ignorant ; but if He
has become man (and He has become), and it
is man's to receive, and to need, and to be
ignorant, wherefore do we consider the Giver
as receiver, and the Dispenser to others do we
suspect to be in need, and divide the Word from
the Father as imperfect and needy, while we
strip human nature of grace ? For if the Word
Himself, considered as Word, has received and
been glorified for His own sake, and if He
according to His Godhead is He who is
hallowed and has risen again, what hope is
there for men ? for they remain as they were,
naked, and wretched, and dead, having no
interest in the things given to the Son. Why
too did the Word come among us, and become
flesh? if that He might receive these things,
which He says that He has received. He was
without them before that, and of necessity will
rather owe thanks Himself to the body% because,
when He came into it, then He receives these
things from the Father, which He had not before
His descent into the flesh. For on this shew-
ing He seems rather to be Himself promoted
because of the body ^, than the body promoted
because of Him. But this notion is Judaic.
But if that He might redeem mankind 3, the
Word did come among us ; and that He might
hallow and deify them, the Word became flesh
(and for this He did become), who does not
a Or. ii. 68. 3 ii. 69, n. 3. 4 IStoiroteiTat, cf. 33, n, 5.
« Infr. 51. => Or.\. 3S.
3 Redemption an internal viOr'k. vid. supr. ii. 55, n. i.
see that it follows, that what He says that
He received, when He became flesh, that He
mentions, not for His own sake, but for the
flesh ? for to it, in which He was speaking, per-
tained the gifts given through Him from the
Father. But let us see what He asked, and
what the things altogether were which He said
that He had received, that in this way also they
may be brought to feeling. He asked then
glory, yet He had said, 'AH things were deHvered
unto Mel' And after the resurrection, He
says that He has received all power ; but even
before that He had said, ' All things were
delivered unto Me,' He was Lord of all, for
* all things were made by Him ; ' and ' there
is One Lord by whom are all things s.' And
when He asked glory, He was as He is, the
Lord of glory ; as Paul says, ' If they had
known it, they would not have crucified the
Lord of glory ^ ; ' for He had that glory which
He asked when He said, ' the glory which I
had with Thee before the world was 7.'
40. Also the power which He said He
received after the resurrection, that He had
before He received it, and before the resurrec-
tion. For He of Himself rebuked Satan,
saying, ' Get thee behind Me, Satan ' ; ' and to
the disciples He gave the power against him,
when on their return He said, ' I beheld Satan,
as lightning, fall from heaven*.' And again,
that what He said that He had received, that
He possessed before receiving it, appears from
His driving away the demons, and from His un-
binding what Satan had bound, as He did in
the case of the daughter of Abraham ; and from
His remitting sins, saying to the paralytic, and
to the woman who washed His feet, ' Thy sins
be forgiven thee 3 ; ' and from His both raising
the dead, and repairing the first nature of the
blind, granting to him to see. And all this He
did, not waiting till He should receive, but
being ' possessed of power *.' From all this it
is plain that what He had as Word, that when
He had become man and was risen again. He
says that He received humanly s ; that for His
sake men might henceforward upon earth have
power against demons, as having become par-
takers of a divine nature ; and in heaven, as
being delivered from corruption, might reign
everlastingly. Thus we must acknowledge this
once for all, that nothing which He says that
He received, did He receive as not possessing
before ; for the Word, as being God, had them
always ; but in these passages He is said
humanly to have received, that, whereas the
flesh received in Him, henceforth from it the
4 Luke X. 22. S I Cor. viii. 6.
6 I Cor. ii. 8. 7 Job. xvii. 5. ' Luke iv. 8.
2 Luke X. 18, 19. 3 Vid. ib. xiii. 16 ; Matt. ix. 5 ; Luke
vii. 48. 4 Is. ix. 6, LXX. 5 Or. i. 45.
4i6
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
gift might abide ^ surely for us. For what is
said by Peter, ' receiving from God honour and
glory, Angels being made subject unto Him ?,'
has this meaning. As He inquired humanly,
and raised Lazarus divinely, so ' He received '
is spoken of Him humanly, but the subjection
of the Angels marks the Word's Godhead.
41. Cease then, O abhorred of God 8, and
degrade not the Word ; nor detract from His
Godhead, which is the Father's 9, as though He
needed or were ignorant; lest ye be casting your
own arguments against the Christ, as the Jews
who once stoned Him. For these belong not to
the Word, as the Word; but are proper to men ;
and, as when He spat, and stretched forth the
hand, and called Lazarus, we did not say that
the triumphs were human, though they were
done through the body, but were God's, so, on
the other hand, though human things are
ascribed to the Saviour in the Gospel, let us,
considering the nature of what is said and that
they are foreign to God, not impute them to the
Word's Godhead, but to His manhood. For
though ' the Word became flesh,' yet to the
flesh are the affections proper ; and though the
flesh is possessed by God in the Word, yet to
the Word belong the grace and the power. He
did then the Father's works through the flesh ;
and as truly contrariwise were the aftections of
the flesh displayed in Him ; for instance, He
inquired and He raised Lazarus, He chid^° His
Mother, saying, ' My hour is not yet come,' and
then at once He made the water wine. For He
was Very God in the flesh, and He was true
flesh in the Word. Therefore from His works
He revealed both Himself as Son of God, and
His own Father, and from the affections of the
flesh He shewed that He bore a true body, and
that it was His own,
CHAPTER XXVIIL
Texts explained; Eleventhly, Mark
xiii. 32 AND Luke ii. 52.
Arian explanation of the former text is against the
Regida Fidei; and against the context. Our Lord
said He was ignorant of the Day, by reason of His
human nature. If the Holy Spirit knows the Day,
therefore the Son knows ; if the Son knows the
6 SiajuciVr), Or. ii. 69, 3. 7 2 Pet. i. 17 ; i Pet. iii. 22.
8 eeoo-Tvyets, su^r. § 16, n. 7. infr. § 58, dc Hlort. Ar. i. In
illudOiMi 6. 9 § I, n. II.
10 John ii. 4. lireirKriT-re ; and so iireriliriiTe, Chrysost. in loc.
Joan, and Theophyl. ms SecjroTTjs em,Tt.fj.a, Theodor. Eran. ii. p. 106.
evTpeVei, Anon. ap. Corder. Cat. in loc. /u.e'/x<^eTai, Alter Anon. ibid.
€7riTi/ia ovK aTifid^iov aWa SiopOovfieuo';, Euthym. in loc. ovk eire-
n-ATjfei/, Pseudo-Justin. Qucest. ad Orthod. 136. It is remarkable
that Athan. dwells on these words as implying our Lord's humanity
(i.e. because Christ appeared to decline a miracle), when one
reason assigned for them by the Fathers is that He wished, in the
words Ti /aot /cai croi, to remind S. Mary that He was the Son of
God and must be 'about His Father's business.' 'Repellens ejus
intempestivam festinationem,' Iren. Hcer. iii. 16, n. 7. It is ob-
servable that eiriTrA^Txei and en-tTi/iia are the words used by Cyril,
&c. [infr. § 54, note 4), for our Lord's treatment of His own sacred
body. But they are vei-y vague words, and have a strong meaning
or not, as the case may be.
Father, therefore He knows the Day ; if He has all
that is the Father's, therefore knowledge of the Day ;
if in the Father, He knows the Day in the Father ;
if He created and upholds all things. He knows when
they will cease to be. He knows not as Man, argued from
Matt. xxiv. 42. As He asked about Lazarus's grave,
&c. , yet knew, so He knows ; as S. Paul says, * whether
in the body I know not,' &c. , yet knew, so He knows.
He said He knew not for our profit, that we be not
curious (as in Acts i. 7, where on the contrary He
did not say He knew not). As the Almighty asks
of Adam and of Cain, yet knew, so the Son knows
[as God]. Again, He advanced in wisdom also as
man, else He made Angels perfect before Himself.
He advanced, in that the Godhead was manifested
in Him more fully as time went on.
42. These things being so, come let us now
examine into ' But of that day and that hour
knoweth no man, neither the Angels of God,
nor the Son ' ; ' for being in great ignorance
as regards these words, and being stupified ^
about them, they think they have in them an
important argument for their heresy. But I,
when the heretics allege it and prepare them-
selves with it, see in them the giants 3 again
fighting against God. For the Lord of heaven
and earth, by whom all things were made, has
to litigate before them about day and hour ;
and the Word who knows all things is accused
by them of ignorance about a day ; and the
Son who knows the Father is said to be ig-
norant of an hour of a day ; now what can be
spoken more contrary to sense, or what mad-
ness can be likened to this? Through the Word
all things have been made, times and seasons
and night and day and the whole creation ;
and is the Framer of all said to be ignorant of
His work? And the very context of the
lection shews that the Son of God knows
that hour and that day, though the Arians fall
headlong in their ignorance. For after saying,
' nor the Son,' He relates to the disciples
what precedes the day, saying, 'This and that
shall be, and then the end.' But He who
speaks of what precedes the day, knows
certainly the day also, which shall be mani-
fested subsequently to the things foretold.
But if He had not known the hour, He had
not signified the events before it, as not
knowing when it should be. And as any
one, who, by way of pointing out a house or
city to those who were ignorant of it, gave an
I Mark xiii. 32. S. Basil takes the words ov5' 6 vios, et /ijj
6 7rar>)p, to mean, 'nor does the Son know, except the Father
knows,' or 'nor would the Son but for, &c.' or 'nor does the Son
know, except as the Father knows.' ' The cause of the Son's
knowing is from the Father.' Ef. 236, 2. S. Gregory alludes to
the same interpretation, oW 6 vios r; <os on o Trarrip. ' Since the
Father knows, therefore the Son.' Naz. Orai. 30, 16. S. Irenaeus
seems to adopt the same when he says, ' The Son was not ashamed
to refer the knowledge of that day to the Father;' HiBr. ii. 28, n.
6. as Naz, su^r. uses the words enl rriv alriav a.va<bepi<r9u>. And
so Photius distinctly, eis apxn" ava^ipirai.. 'Not the Son, but
the Father, that is, whence knowledge comes to the Son as from
a fountain.' Epp. p. 342. ed. 1651. _ _
" o-KOToSiVKOfTes, de Deer. % 18 init. ; Or. u. 40, n. 5.
3 yiyavTa% 0eop.axovvTa^ , ii. 32, n. 4.
DISCOURSE III.
417
account of what comes before the house or
city, and having described all, said, ' Then
immediately comes the city or the house,'
would know of course where the house or the
city was (for had he not known, he had not
described what comes before lest from igno-
rance he should throw his hearers far out
of the way, or in speaking he should unawares
go beyond the object), so the Lord saying
■what precedes that day and that hour, knows
exactly, nor is ignorant, when the hour and
the day are at hand.
43. Now why it was that, though He knew.
He did not tell His disciples plainly at that
time, no one may be curious ^ where He has
been silent ; for ' Who hath known the mind
of the Lord, or who hath been His coun-
sellor ^ ? ' but why, though He knew. He said,
'no, not the Son knows,' this I think none
of the faithful is ignorant, viz. that He made
this as those other declarations as man by
reason of the flesh. For this as before is not
the Word's deficiency 3, but of that human
nature 4 whose property it is to be ignorant.
And this again will be well seen by honestly
examining into the occasion, when and to
whom the Saviour spoke thus. Not then when
the heaven was made by Him, nor when He
was with the Father Himself, the Word ' dis-
posing all things s,' nor before He became
man did He say it, but when ' the Word
became flesh ^.' On this account it is reason-
able to ascribe to His manhood everything
which, after He became man, He speaks
humanly. For it is proper to the Word to
know what was made, nor be ignorant either
of the beginning or of the end of these (for
the works are His), and He knows how
many things He wrought, and the limit of their
consistence. And knowing of each the begin-
ning and the end. He knows surely the general
and common end of all. Certainly when He
says in the Gospel concerning Himself in His
human character, ' Father, the hour is come,
glorify Thy Son?,' it is plain that He knows
also the hour of the end of all things, as
the Word, though as man He is ignorant of it,
for ignorance is proper to man^, and especially
I Cf. § 18, n. 3. • Rom. xi. 34. 3 Or. i. 45.
4 Cf. ii. 45, n. 2. 5 Prov. viii. 27, LXX-
6 John i. 14. 7 lb. xvii. i.
8 Though our Lord, as having two natures, had a human as
well as a divine knowledge, and though that human knowledge
was not only limited because human, but liable to ignorance in
matters in which greater knowledge was possible ; yet it is the
doctrine of the [later] Church, that in /act He was not ignorant even
in His human nature, according to its capacity, since it was from
the first taken out of its original and natural condition, and
deiliea' by its union with the Word. As then (supr. ii. 45, note
ij His manhood was created, yet He may not be called a crea-
ture even in His manhood, and ^%i^supr. ii. 14, note 5) His flesh
was in its abstract nature a servant, yet He is not a servant in
fact, even as regards the flesh ; so, though He took on Him a soul
which left to itself had been partially ignorant, as other human
souls, yet as ever enjoying the beatific vision from its oneness with
ignorance of these things. Moreover this is
proper to the Saviour's love of man ; for since
He was made man, He is not ashamed, be-
cause of the flesh which is ignorant?, to say
' I know not,' that He may shew that knowing
as God, He is but ignorant according to the
flesh ^°. And therefore He said not, 'no, not
the Son of God knows,' lest the Godhead
should seem ignorant, but simply, 'no, not
the Son,' that the ignorance might be the Son's
as bom from among men.
44. On this account, He alludes to the
Angels, but He did not go further and say,
' not the Holy Ghost ; ' but He was silent,
with a double intimation; first that if the
Spirit knew, much more must the Word know,
considered as the Word, from whom the Spirit
receives^; and next by His silence about the
Spirit, He made it clear, that He said of
His human ministry, ' no, not the Son.' And
a proof of it is this; that, when He had
spoken humanly^ ' No, not the Son knows,'
the Word, it never was ignorant really, but knew all things which
human soul can know. vid. Eiilog. ap. Phot. 230. p. 884. As Pope
Gregory expresses it, ' Novit in natura, non ex natura humani-
tatis." Epp. X. 39. However, this view of the sacred subject was re-
ceived by the Church only after S. Athanasius's day, and it cannot
be denied that others of the most eminent Fathers seem to impute
ignorance to our Lord as man, as Athan. in this passage. Of
course it is not meant that our Lord's soul has the same per-
fect knowledge as He has as God. This was the assertion of
a General of the Hermits of S. Austin at the time of the Council
of Basel, when the proposition was formally condemned, animam
Christi Deum videre tarn clare et intense quam clare et intense
Deus videt seipsum. vid. Berti 0pp. t. 3. p. 42. Yet Fulgentius
had said, ' I think that in no respect was full knowledge of the
Godhead wanting to that Soul, whose Person is one with the
Word : whom Wisdom so assumed that it is itself that same
Wisdom." ad Ferrattd. iii. p. 223. ed. 1639. Vet, ad Trasniund.
i. 7. he speaks of ignorance attaching to our Lord's human nature.
9 Cf. § 48.
1° And so Athan. ad Scrap, ii. 9. S. Basil on the question being
asked him by S. Amphilochius, says that he shall give him the
answer he had ' heard from a boy from the fathers,' but which was
more fitted for pious Christians than for cavillers, and that is, that
'our Lord says many thing-^ to men in His human aspect; as
" Give me to drink," . . . yet He who asked was not flesh without
a soul, but Godhead using fljsh which had one.' Ep. 236, i. He
goes on to suggest another explanation which has been mentioned
§ 42, note I. Cf. Cyril Trin. pp. 623, 4. vid. also Thes. p. 220.
' As he submitted as man to hunger and thirst, so .... to be igno-
rant.' p. 22t. vid. also Greg. Naz. Orat. 30, 15. Theodoret ex-
presses the same opinion very strongly, speaking of a gradual
revelation to the manhood from the Godhead, but in an argument
where it was to his point to do so ; in Anath. 4. t. v. p. 23. ed.
Schulze. Theodore of Mopsuestia also speaks of a revelation made
by the Word. ap. Leont. c. Nest. (Canis. i. p. 579.)
1 Or. i. 47 ; Serap. i, 20 fin.
2 Leporius, in his Retractation, which S. Augustine sub-
scribed, writes, 'That I may in this respect also leave nothing
to be cause of suspicion to any one, I then said, nay I answered
when it was put to me, that our Lord Jesus Christ was ignorant
as He was man, (secundum hominem). But now not only do
I not presume to say so, but I even anathematize my former
opinion expressed on this point,' ap Sirm. t. i. p. 210. A sub-
division also of the Eutychians were called by the name of Ag-
noetje from their holding that our Lord was ignorant of the d^y of
judgment. 'They said,' says Leontius, ' that He was ignorant of
it, as we say that He underwent toil.' de Sect. 5. circ. fin. Felix
of Urgela held the same doctrine according to Agobard's testimony,
see § 46, n. 2. Montfaucon observes on the text, that the asser-
tion of our Lord's ignorance 'seems to have been condemned in
no one in ancient times, unless joined to other error.' And Pe-
tavius, after drawing out the authorities for and against it, says,
' Of these two opinions, the latter, which is now received both by
custom and by tne agreement of divines, is deservedly preferred to
the former. For it is more agreeable to Christ's dignity, and more
befitting His character and oflSce of Mediator and Head, that
is. Fountain of all giace and wisdom, and moreover of Judge, who
is concerned in knowing the time fixed for exercising that function.
VOL. IV.
K e
4-18
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
He yet shews that divinely He knew all things.
For that Son whom He declares not to know
the day, Him He declares to know the Father ;
for 'No one,' He says, 'knoweth the Father
save the Son 3.' And all men but the Arians
would join in confessing, that He who knows
the Father, much more knows the whole
of the creation ; and in that whole, its end.
And if already the day and the hour be
determined by the Father, it is plain that
through the Son are they determined, and He
knows Himself what through Him has been
determined'*, for there is nothing but has
come to be and has been determined through
the Son. Therefore He, being the Framer
of the universe, knows of what nature, and
of what magnitude, and with what limits, the
Father has willed it to be made ; and in the
how much and how far is included its period.
And again, if all that is the Father's, is the
Son's (and this He Himself hass said), and it
is the Father's attribute to know the day, it is
plain that the Son too knows it, having this
proper to Him from the Father. And again,
if the Son be in the Father and the Father
in the Son, and the Father knows the day and
the hour, it is clear that the Son, being in the
Father and knowing the things of the Father,
knows Himself also the day and the hour.
And if the Son is also the Father's Very
Image, and the Father knows the day and the
hour, it is plain that the Son has this likeness ^
also to the Father of knowing them. And it is
not wonderful if He, through whom all things
were made, and in whom the universe consists.
Himself knows what has been brought to be,
and when the end will be of each and of all
together ; rather is it wonderful that this au-
dacity, suitable as it is to the madness of the
Ario-maniacs, should have forced us to have
recourse to so long a defence. For rank-
ing the Son of God, the Eternal Word, among
things originate, they are not far from venturing
to maintain that the Father Himself is second
to the creation ; for if He who knows the Fa-
ther knows not the day nor the hour, I fear lest
the knowledge of the creation, or rather of the
lower portion of it, be greater, as they in their
madness would say, than knowledge concern-
ing the Father.
45. But for them, when they thus blaspheme
the Spirit, they must expect no remission ever
of such irreligion, as the Lord has said ' ; but
let us, who love Christ and bear Christ within
us, know that the Word, not as ignorant, con-
sidered as Word, has said ' I know not,' for
He knows, but as shewing His manhood 2, in
that to be ignorant is proper to man, and that
He had put on flesh that was ignorant 3, being
in which. He said according to the flesh, ' I
know not' And for this reason, after saying,
' No not the Son knows,' and mentioning the
ignorance of the men in Noah's day, imme-
diately He added, 'Watch therefore, for ye
know not in what hour your Lord doth come,'
and again, ' In such an hour as ye think not,
the Son of man comethl' For I too, having
become as you for you, said ' no, not the Son.'
For, had He been ignorant divinely, He must
have said, 'Watch therefore, for I know not,'
and, ' In an hour when I think not ;' but in
fact this hath He not said ; but by saying ' Ye
know not ' and ' When ye think not,' He has
signified that it belongs to man to be ignorant ;
for whose sake He too having a flesh like
theirs and having become man, said ' No, not
the Son knows,' for He knew not in flesh,
though knowing as Word. And again the
la consequence, the former opinion, though formerly it received
the countenance of some men of high eminence, was afterwards
marked as a heresy.' Incam. xi. i. § 15.
3 Mat. xi. 27. 4 Or. ii. 41, iii. 9, 46. S John xvi. 15.
6 Basil. Ep. 236, 1. Cyril. Thes. p. 220. Ambros. de fid. v. 197.
Hence the force of the word ' living ' commonly joined to such
words as elKiov, <x<j>payU, ^ovkr]. evep-yeia, when speaking of our
Lord, e.g. Naz. Orai. 30, 20, c. Vid. § 63, J€«. note.
' Or. i. so, n. 7.
" It is a question to be decided, whether our Lord speaks of
actual ignorance in His human Mind, or of the natural ignorance
of that Mind considered as human ; ignorance in or ex natura ;
or, which comes to the same thing, whether He spoke of a real
ignorance, or of an economical or professed ignorance, in a certain
view of His incarnation or office, as when He asked, ' How many
loaves have ye ? ' when ' He Himself knew what He would do,' or
as He is called sin, though sinless. Thus it has been noticed,
su/r. ii. 55, n. 7, that Ath. seems to make His infirmities altogether
only imputative, not real, as if shewing that the subject had not in
his day been thoroughly worked out. In like manner S. Hilary,
who, if the passage be genuine, states so clearly our Lord's
ignorance, de Trin. ix. fin. yet, as Petavius observes, seems else-
where to deny to Him those very affections of the flesh to which
he has there paralleled it. And this view of Athan.'s meaning is
favoured by the turn of his expressions. He says such a defect
belongs to ' that human nature whose property it is to be ignorant ;'
§43. that 'since He was made man. He is not ashamed, because
of the flesh which is ignorant, to say, " I know not ; " ' ibid, and,
as here, that 'as skewing His manhood, in that to be ignorant
is proper to man, and that He had put on a flesh that was
ignorant, being in which. He said according to the flesh, "I
know not;'" 'that He might shew that as man He knows
not;' § 46. that 'as man' (i.e. on the ground oi_ being man,
not in the capacity of man), ' He knows not ; ' ibid, and that,
' He asks about Lazarus humanly,' even when ' He was on His
way to raise him,' which implied surely knowledge in His human
nature. The reference to the parallel of S. Paul's professed ignor-
ance when he really knew, § 47. leads us to the same suspicion.
And so ' for our profit as I think, did He this.' §§ 48—50. The
natural want of precision on such questions in the early ages was
shewn or fostered by such words as oiKovoju-iKtis, which, in respect
of this very text, is used by S. Basil to denote both our Lord's
Incarnation, Ep. 236, i fin. and His gracious accommodation of
Himself and His truth, Ep. 8, 6. and with the like variety of
meaning, with reference to the same text, by Cyril. Tnn. p. 623.
and ThesaJir. p. 224. (And the word dispensatio in like manner,
Ben. note on Hil. x. 8.) In the latter Ep. S. Basil suggests that
our Lord ' economizes by a feigned ignorance.' § 6. And S. Cyril.
Tliesaur. p. 224. And even in de Trin. vi. he seems to recognise
the distinction laid down just now between the natural and actual
state of our Lord's humanity; and so Hilary, Trin. ix. 62. And
he gives reasons why He professed ignorance, n. 67. viz. as S.
Austin words it, Christum se dixisse nescientem, in quo alios facit
occultando nescientes. Ep. 180, 3. S. Austin follows him, saying.
Hoc nescit quod nescienter facit. Trin.'\.Q.-i. Pope Gregory says
that the text 'is most certainly to be referred to the Son not as
He is Head, but as to His liody which we are.' Ep x. 39. And
S. Ambrose defid. v. 222. And so Csssarius, Qu. 20. and Photius
Epp. p. 366. Chrysost. in Matt. i/o;«. 77, 3. _ Theodoret, however,
but in controversy, is very severe on the principle of Economy. ' It
He knew the day, and wishing to conceal it, said He was ignorant,
see what a blasphemy is the result. Truth tells an untruth.
1. c. pp. 23, 4. 3 § 48. 4 Matt. xxiv. 42, 44-
DISCOURSE III.
419
example from Noah exposes the shamelessness
of Christ's enemies ; for there too He said,
not, ' I knew not,' but * They knew not until
the flood came s.' For men did not know, but
He who brought the flood (and it was the
Saviour Himself) knew the day and the hour
in which He opened the cataracts of heaven,
and broke up the great deep, and said to
Noah, ' Come thou and all thy house into
the ark^.' For were He ignorant. He had
not foretold to Noah, ' Yet seven days and
I will bring a flood upon the earth.' But
if in describing the day He makes use of the
parallel of Noah's time, and He did know the
day of the flood, therefore He knows also the
day of His own coming.
46. Moreover, after narrating the parable of
the Virgins, again He shews more clearly who
they are who are ignorant of the day and the
hour, saying, ' Watch therefore, for ye know
neither the day nor the hour'.' He who said
shortly before, ' No one knoweth, no not the
Son,' now says not ' I know not,' but * ye know
not' In like manner then, when His disciples
asked about the end, suitably said He then,
*no, nor the Son,' according to the flesh
because of the body; that He might shew that,
as man, He knows not ; for ignorance is
proper to man 2. If however He is the Word,
if it is He who is to come. He to be Judge,
He to be the Bridegroom, He knoweth when
and in what hour He cometh, and when He is
to say, 'Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise
from the dead, and Christ shall give thee
lights.' For as, on becoming man. He hungers
and thirsts and suffers with men, so with men,
as man He knows not ; though divinely, being
in the Father Word and Wisdom, He knows,
and there is nothing which He knows not.
In like manner also about Lazarus * He asks
humanly, who was on His way to raise him,
and knew whence He should recall Lazarus's
soul ; and it was a greater thing to know where
the soul was, than to know where the body
lay ; but He asked humanly, . that He might
raise divinely. So too He asks of the dis-
ciples, on coming into the parts of Caesarea,
S Matt. xxiv. 39. 6 Gen. vii. i. ' Matt. xxv. 13.
* The mode in which Athan. here expresses himself, is as if he
did not ascribe ignorance literally, but apparent ignorance, to our
Lord's soul, vid. su/r. 45. n. 2 ; not certainly in the broad sense in
which heretics have done so. As Leontius, e.g. reports of Theo-
dore of Mopsuestia, that he considered Christ ' to be ignorant so
far, as not to know, when He was tempted, who tempted Him ; '
contr. Nest. iii. (Canis. t. i. p. 579. ) and Agobard of Felix the
Adoptionist that he held ' Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the
flesh truly to have been ignorant of the sepulchre of Lazarus,
when He said to his sisters, ' Where have ye laid him ?' and was
truly ignorant of the day of judgment ; and was truly ignorant
what the two disciples were saying, as they walked by the way, of
what had been done at Jerusalem ; and was truly ignorant
■whether He was more loved by Peter than by the other disciples,
when He said, ' Simon Peter, Lovest thou Me more than these?'
B. F. t. 9. p. 1177. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. iv. § 5.J
3 Eph. V. 14. 4 § 37.
though knowing even before Peter made an-
swer. For if the Father revealed to Peter the
answer to the Lord's question, it is plain that
through the Son s was the revelation, for ' No
one knoweth the Son,' saith He, 'save the
Father, neither the Father save the Son, and he
to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him^*
But if through the Son is revealed the know-
ledge both of the Father and the Son, there is
no room for doubting that the Lord who asked,
having first revealed it to Peter from the
Father, next asked humanly; in order to shew,
that asking after the flesh, He knew divinely
what Peter was about to say. The Son then
knew, as knowing all things, and knowing His
own Father, than which knowledge nothing
can be greater or more perfect
47. This is sufficient to confute them; but
to shew still further that they are hostile to
the truth and Christ's enemies, I could wish to
ask them a question. The Apostle in the
Second Epistle to the Corinthians writes, ' I
knew a man in Christ, above fourteen years
ago, whether in the body I do not know, or
whether out of the body I do not know ; God
knoweth '.' What now say ye ? Knew the
Apostle what had happened to him in the
vision, though he says ' I know not,' or knew
he not ? If he knew not, see to it, lest, being
familiar with error, ye err in the trespass '^ of
the Phrygians 3, who say that the Prophets and
the other ministers of the Word know neither
what they do nor concerning what they an-
nounce. But if he knew when he said ' I
know not,' for he had Christ within him re-
vealing to him all things, is not the heart of
God's enemies indeed perverted and ' self-
condemned ?' for when the Apostle says, ' I
know not,' they say that he knows ; but when
the Lord says, ' I know not,' they say that He
does not know. For if since Christ was within
him, Paul knew that of which he says, ' I know
not,' does not much more Christ Himself know,
though He say, 'I know not?' The Apostle
then, the Lord reveahng it to him, knew
what happened to him ; for on this account he
says, ' I knew a man in Christ ;' and knowing
the man, he knew also how the man was caught
away. Thus Elisha, who beheld Elijah, knew
S Cf. 44, n. 4. 6 Luke x. 22.
' 2 Cor. xii. 2. S. Augustine understands the passage dif-
ferently, i.e. that S. Paul really did not know whether or not
he was in the body. Gen. ad lit, xii. 14.
* Tta.pa.v<ni.ia.v , § 2, n 5.
3 Cf. Jerome, ' He speaks not in ecstasy, as Montanus, Prisca,
and Maximilla rave ; ' Preef. in Nautn. In like manner Ter-
tuUian speaks of ' amentia, as the spiritalis vis qua constat pro-
phetia;' de AnUn. 21. Cf- Eusebius, Hist. v. 16. Epiphanius
too, noticing the failure of Maximilla's prophecies, says, ' Whatever
the prophets have said, they spoke with understanding, following the
sense.' Hier. 48. p. 403. In the de Syn. 4. Athan. speaks ol the
Montanists as making a fresh beginning of Christianity ; i.e. they
were the first heretics who professed to prophesy and to introduce
a new or additional revelation.
E e 2
420
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
also how he was taken up ; but though know-
ing, yet when the sons of the Prophets thought
that Ehjah was cast upon one of the mountains
by the Spirit, he knowing from the first what
he had seen, tried to persuade them ; but
when they urged it, he was silent, and suffered
them to go after him. Did he then not know,
because he was silent ? he knew indeed, but
as if not knowing,. he suffered them, that they
being convinced, might no more doubt about
the taking up of Elijah. Therefore much
more Paul, himself being the person caught
away, knew also how he was caught ; for
Elijah knew ; and had any one asked, he
would have said how. And yet Paul says ' I
know not,' for these two reasons, as I think at
least ; one, as he has said himself, lest because
of the abundance of the revelations any one
should think of him beyond what he saw ; the
other, because, our Saviour having said ' I
know not,' it became him also to say ' I know
not,' lest the servant should appear above his
Lord, and the disciple above his Master.
48. Therefore He who gave to Paul to
know, much rather knew Himself; for since
He spoke of the antecedents of the day. He
also knew, as I said before, when the Day and
when the Hour, and yet though knowing. He
says, 'No, not the Son knoweth.' Why then
said He at that time ' I know not,' what He,
as Lord ', knew ? as we may by searching con-
jecture, for our profit % as I think at least, did
He this ; and may He grant to what we are
now proposing a true meaning ! On both sides
did the Saviour secure our advantage ; for He
has made known what comes before the end,
that, as He said Himself, we might not be
startled nor scared, when they happen, but
from them may expect the end after them.
And concerning the day and the hour He was
not willing to say according to His divine
nature, ' I know,' but after the flesh, ' I know
not,' for the sake of the flesh which was ig-
norant 3, as I have said before ; lest they
should ask Him further, and then either He
should have to pain the disciples by not
speaking, or by speaking might act to the
prejudice of them and us all. For whatever
He does, that altogether He does for our
sakes, since also for us ' the Word became
flesh.' For us therefore He said ' No, not the
Son knoweth ;' and neither was He untrue in
thus saying (for He said humanly, as man, ' I
know not '), nor did He suffer the disciples to
force Him to speak, for by saying ' I know
» S6(r7roTr)9, § 56, 6.
= This expression, which repeatedly occurs in this and the
following sections, surely implies that there was something eco-
nomical in our Lord's profession of ignorance. He said with
not ' He Stopped their inquiries. And so in
the Acts of the Apostles it is written, when
He went upon the Angels, ascending as man,
and carrying up to heaven the flesh which He
bore, on the disciples seeing this, and again
asking, 'When shall the end be, and when
wilt Thou be present ?' He said to them more
clearly, ' It is not for you to know the times or
the seasons which the Father hath put in His
own power 4.' And He did not then say, 'No,
not the Son,' as He said before humanly, but,
' It is not for you to know.' For now the
flesh had risen and put off its mortality and
been deified; and no longer did it become
Him to answer after the flesh when He was
going into the heavens ; but henceforth to
teach after a divine manner, ' It is not for you
to know times or seasons which the Father
hath put in His own power ; but ye shall
receive Powers' And what is that Power of
the Father but the Son ? for Christ is * God's
Power and God's Wisdom.'
49. The Son then did know, as being the
Word; for He implied this in what He said, —
* I know, but it is not for you to know ; for it
was for your sakes that sitting also on the
mount I said according to the flesh, ' No, not
the Son knoweth,' for the profit of you and all.
For it is profitable to you to hear so much
both of the Angels and of the Son, because
of the deceivers which shall be afterwards ;
that though demons should be transfigured as
Angels, and should attempt to speak concern-
ing the end, you should not believe, since
they are ignorant ; and that, if Antichrist
too, disguising himself, should say, ' I am
Christ,' and should try in his turn to speak
of that day and end, to deceive the hearers,
ye, having these words from Me, ' No, not the
Son,' may disbelieve him also. And further,
not to know when the end is, or when the
day of the end, is expedient for man, lest
knowing, they might become negligent of the
time between, awaiting the days near the
end ; for they will argue that then only
must they attend to themselves ^ Therefore
also has He been silent of the time when
each shall die, lest men, being elated on the
ground of knowledge, should forthwith neglect
themselves for the greater part of their time.
Both then, the end of all things and the limit
of each of us hath the Word concealed from
us (for in the end of all is the end of each,
and in the end of each the end of all is com-
prehended), that, whereas it is uncertain and
4 Acts i. 7.
5 Vid. Basil. Ep. 8, 6. Cyril. Thes. p.' 222. 'Ambros. de fid.
V. 212. Chrysost. and Hieron. in loc. Matt.
« Vid. Hilar, in Matt. Comment. 26, 4; dt Trin. ix. 67;
a piirpose, not as a mere plain fact or doctrine. [But see Prolegg. Ambros. de Fid. v. c 17. Isidor. Pelus. Epp. \. 117. Chrysost.
ch. iv. § 5.] 3 43, n. 9; 45, n. 3. I in Matt. Horn. 77, 2 and 3.
DISCOURSE III.
i2l
always in prospect, we may advance day by
day as if summoned, reaching forward to the
things before us and forgetting the things
behind ^ For who, knowing the day of the
end, would not be dilatory with the interval ?
but, if ignorant, would not be ready day by
day ? It was on this account that the Saviour
added, 'Watch therefore, for ye know not
what hour your Lord doth come ; ' and, ' In
such an hour as ye think not, the Son of
man cometh3.' For the advantage then which
comes of ignorance has He said this; for
in saying it. He wishes that we should always
be prepared ; 'for you,' He says, 'know not;
but I, the Lord, know when I come, though
the Arians do not wait for Me, who am the
Word of the Father.'
50. The Lord then, knowing what is good
for us beyond ourselves, thus secured the dis-
ciples ; and they, being thus taught, set right
those of Thessalonica't when likely on this
point to run into error. However, since
Christ's enemies do not yield even to these
considerations, I wish, though knowing that
they have a heart harder than Pharaoh, to ask
them again concerning this. In Paradise God
asks, ' Adam, where art Thous ? ' and He in-
quires of Cain also, ' Where is Abel thy
brother^?' What then say you to this? for
if you think Him ignorant and therefore to
have asked, you are already of the party of the
Manichees, for this is their bold thought ; but
if, fearing the open name, ye force yourselves
to say, that He asks knowing, what is there
extravagant or strange in the doctrine, that ye
should thus fall, on finding that the Son, in
whom God then inquired, that same Son who
now is clad in flesh, inquires of the disciples
as man ? unless forsooth, having become Mani-
chees, you are willing to blame 7 the question
then put to Adam and all that you may
give full play^ to your perverseness. For
being exposed on all sides, you still make
a whispering 9 from the words of Luke, which
are rightly said, but ill understood by you.
' Vid. Phil. HL 13. 3 Matt. xxiv. 42 ; Luke xii. 40.
4 Vid. 2 Thess. ii. i, 2.
5 Gen. iii. 9 ; iv. 9. This seems taken from Origen, in Matt.
t. 10. § 14. vid. also Pope Gregory and Chrysost. infr.
* S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and Pope Gregory, in addition
to the instances in the text, refer to ' I will go down now, and see
whether they have done, &c., and if not, I will know.' Gen. xviii.
21. 'The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, &c.'
Gen. xi. 5. ' God looked down from heaven upon the children of
men to see, &c.' Ps. liii. 3. 'It may be they will reverence My
Son.' Matt. xxi. 37 ; Luke xx. 13. ' Seeing a fig-tree afar off,
having leaves, He came, if haply Yi^ 7nightfind, Arc' Mark xi.
13. ' Simon, lovest thou Me?' John xxi. 15. vid. Ambros. de Fid.
V. c. 17. Chrys. iti Matt. Horn. 77, 3. Greg. EJ>p. x. 39. Vid.
also the instances, supr. § 37. Other passages may be added,
such as Gen xxii. 12. vid. Berti O//. t. 3. p. 42. But the diffi-
culty of the passage lies in its signifying that there is a sense in
which the Father knows what the Son knows not.
7 Or, i. 8, n. 2. 8 veavi.evri<rde, vid. Decr.tS init.
tie Ftig. 4. b. 9 Toi'dopv^exe, vid. Deer. 16.
And what this is, we must state, that so also
their corrupt '° meaning may be shewn.
51. Now Luke says, 'And Jesus advanced .
in wisdom and stature, and in grace with God
and man'.' This then is the passage, and
since they stumble in it, we are compelled
to ask them, like the Pharisees and the Saddu-
cees, of the person concerning whom Luke
speaks. And the case stands thus. Is Jesus
Christ man, as all other men, or is He God
bearing flesh? If then He is an ordinary^
man as the rest, then let Him, as a man, ad-
vance; this however is the sentiment of the
Samosatene, which virtually indeed you enter-
tain also, though in name you deny it because
of men. But if He be God bearing flesh, as
He .truly is, and 'the Word became flesh,' and
being God descended upon earth, what ad-
vance had He who existed equal to God ? or
how had the Son increase, being ever in the
Father? For if He who was ever in the
Father, advanced, what, I ask, is there beyond
the Father from which His advance might be
made ? Next it is suitable here to repeat what
was said upon the point of His receiving and
being glorified. If He advanced 3 when He
became man, it is plain that, before He be-
came man, He was imperfect ; and rather the
flesh became to Him a cause of perfection,
than He to the flesh. And again, if, as being
the Word, He advances, what has He more
to become than Word and Wisdom and Son
and God's Power? For the Word is all these,
of which if one can anyhow partake as it
were one ray, such a man becomes all-perfect
among men, and equal to Angels. For Angels,
and Archangels, and Dominions, and all the
Powers, and Thrones, as partaking the Word,
behold always the face of His Father. How
then does He who to others supplies per-
fection. Himself advance later than they?
For Angels even ministered to His human
birth, and the passage from Luke comes later
than the ministration of the Angels. How
then at all can it even come into thought
of man ? or how did Wisdom advance in
wisdom ? or how did He who to others gives
grace (as Paul says in every Epistle, knowing
that through Him grace is given, ' The grace
of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all'),
how did He advance in grace ? for either let
them say that the Apostle is untrue, and pre-
sume to say that the Son is not Wisdom, or
else if He is Wisdom as Solomon said, and
if Paul wrote, ' Christ God's Power and God's
Wisdom,' of what advance did Wisdom admit
further ?
52. For men, creatures as they are, are
10 Si.e(l>eapnevri, § 58 fin. » Luke ii. 52. • » § 32, n. 7,
3 De Syn. 24, n. 9, vid. supr. § 39 ; Orat. iv. 11.
422
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
capable in a certain way of reading forward
and advancing in virtue ^ Enoch, for instance,
was thus translated, and Moses increased and
was perfected ; and Isaac ' by advancing be-
came great^;' and the Apostle said that he
'reached forths' day by day to what was
before him. For each had room for advanc-
ing, looking to the step before him. But the
Son of God, who is One and Only, what room
had He for reaching forward ? for all things
advance by looking at Him ; and He, being
One and Only,is in the Only Father, from whom
again He does not reach forward, but in Him
abideth evers*. To men then belongs advance;
but the Son of God, since He could not ad-
vance, being perfect in the Father, humbled
Himself for us, that in His humbling we- on
the other hand might be able to increase.
And our increase is no other than the re-
nouncing things sensible, and coming to the
Word Himself; since His humbhng is nothing
else than His taking our flesh. It was not
then the Word, considered as the Word, who
advanced ; who is perfect from the perfect
Father^, who needs nothing, nay brings for-
ward others to an advance; but humanly is
He here also said to advance, since advance
belongs to mans. Hence the Evangehst,
speaking with cautious exactness^, has men-
tioned stature in the advance; but being Word
and God He is not measured by stature, which
belongs to bodies. Of the body then is the
advance; for, it advancing, in it advanced also
the manifestation? of the Godhead to those
who saw it. And, as the Godhead was more
and more revealed, by so much more did His
grace as man increase before all men. For as
a child He was carried to the Temple ; and
when He became a boy. He remained there,
and questioned the priests about the Law.
And by degrees His body increasing, and
the Word manifesting Himself^ in it. He is
confessed henceforth by Peter first, then also
\ It 's the doctrine of the [medieval and modern] Church that
Christ, as man, was perfect in knowledge from the first, as if ig-
norance were hardly separable from sin, and were the direct con-
sequence or accompaniment of original sin. Cf. Aug. c/e Pecc.
;M«'?-. 11. 48. As to the limits of Christ's perfect knowledge as man,
Petavius observes, that we must consider ' that the soul of Christ
knew all things that are or ever will be or ever have been, but not
what are only 2« posse, not in fact.' htcarn. xi. 3, 6.
» Vid. Gen. xxvi. 13. 3 Phil. iii. 13. 3* § 4, n. 10.
* Or. 11. 36, n. 4. 5 Vid. Serm. Maj. de Fid. 18.
\ ^/"-.l'- 12, n-4. 7 g:;i, „. 10.
'^ remarkable, considering the tone of his statements in
the present chapter, that here and in what follows Athan. should
resolve our Lord's advance in wisdom merely to its gradual mani-
festation through the flesh [but he says expressly ' the Manhood
advanced in wisdom!'] and it increases the proof that his state-
ments are not to be taken in the letter, and as if fully brought out
and settled. Naz. says the same, Ep. ad Cled. loi. p. 86. which
IS the more remarkable since he is chiefly writing against the
Apolhnarians, who considered a <j>avep<o<7Ls the great end of our
Lord s coniing; and Cyril, c. Nest. iii. p. 87. Theod. Hor. v. 13.
On the other hand, S. Epiphanius speaks of Him as growing
. in wisdom a.s man. Har. 77. p. 1019—24. and S. Ambrose, Incarn.
71—14. Vid. however Ambr. de ^d. as quoted sui>r. § 45, n. 2.
by all, * Truly this is the Son of Gods ;' how-
ever wilfully the Jews, both the ancient and
these modern ^°, shut fast their eyes, lest they
see that to advance in wisdom is not the
advance of Wisdom Itself, but rather the man-
hood's advance in It. For ' Jesus advanced in
wisdom and grace ; ' and, if we may speak
what is explanatory as well as true. He ad-
vanced in Himself; for 'Wisdom builded her-
self an house,' and in herself she gave the
house advancement.
53. (What moreover is this advance that is
spoken of, but, as I said before, the deifying
and grace imparted from Wisdom to men, sin
being obliterated in them and their inward cor-
ruption, according to their likeness and relation-
ship to the flesh of the Word ?) For thus, the
body increasing in stature, there developed in
it the manifestation of the Godhead also, and
to all was it displayed that the body was
God's Temple ', and that God was in the body.
And if they urge, that 'The Word become
flesh ' is called Jesus, and refer to Him the term
' advanced,' they must be told that neither does
this impair 2 the Father's Light 3, which is the
Son, but that it still shews that the Word has
become man, and bore true flesh. And as we
said 4 that He suffered in the flesh, and
hungered in the flesh, and was fatigued in
the flesh, so also reasonably may He be said
to have advanced in the flesh ; for neither did
the advance, such as we have described it, take
place with the Word external to the flesh, for
in Him was the flesh which advanced and His
is it called, and that as before, that man's
advance might abide s and fail not, because of
the Word which is with it. Neither then was
the advance the Word's, nor was the flesh
Wisdom, but the flesh became the body of
Wisdom ^ Therefore, as we have already
said, not Wisdom, as Wisdom, advanced in
respect of Itself; but the manhood advanced
in Wisdom, transcending by degrees human
nature, and being deified, and becoming and
appearing to all as the organ? of Wisdom for
the operation and the shining forth ^ of the God-
head. Wherefore neither said he, ' The Word
advanced,' but Jesus, by which Name the Lord
was called when He became man ; so that the
advance is of the human nature in such wise as
we explained above.
CHAPTER XXIX.
Texts Explained ; Twelfthly, Matthew
xxvi. 39 ; John xii. 27, &c.
Arian inferences are against the Regula Fidei, as befora.
9 Matt. xvi. 16; xxvii. 54.
' Or. ii. 10, n, 7 ; iii. 58.
4 § 34. 5 iL 69, n.
7 31, n. 10.
'o Or. ii. I, n. 6.
' i. 45. 3 iii. 16, n. 8.
* § 31, n. 12.
Or. ii. 52, n. 6.
DISCOURSE III.
423
He wept and the like, as man. Other texts prove
Him God. God could not fear. He feared because
His flesh feared.
54. Therefore as, when the flesh advanced,
He is said to have advanced, because the body
was His own, so also what is said at the sea-
son of His death, that He was troubled, that
He wept, must be taken in the same sense'.
For they, going up and down 2, as if thereby re-
commending their heresy anew, allege ; " Be-
hold, * He wept,' and said, ' Now is My soul
troubled,' and He besought that the cup
might pass away ; how then, if He so spoke, is
He God, and Word of the Father ? " Yea, it is
written that He wept, O God's enemies, and
that He said, ' I am troubled,' and on the Cross
He said, ' Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,' that is,
' My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken
Me ? ' and He besought that the cup might
pass away 3. Thus certainly it is written ; but
again I would ask you (for the same rejoinder
must of necessity be made to each of your
objections 4), If the speaker is mere man, let
him weep and fear death, as being man ; but if
He is the Word in flesh s (for one must not be
reluctant to repeat), whom had He to fear being
God ? or wherefore should He fear death, who
was Himself Life, and was rescuing others from
death ? or how, whereas He said, ' Fear not
him that kills the body ^,' should He Himself
fear ? And how should He who said to Abra-
ham, ' Fear not, for I am with thee,' and
encouraged Moses against Pharaoh, and said
to the son of Nun, ' Be strong, and of a good
courage?,' Himself feel terror before Herod and
Pilate ? Further, He who succours others
against fear (for ' the Lord,' says Scripture, ' is
on my side, I will not fear what man shall do
unto me^'), did He fear governors, mortal
men ? did He who Himself was come against
death, feel terror of death ? Is it not both
unseemly and irreligious to say that He was ter-
rified at death or hades, whom the keepers of
the gates of hades 9 saw and shuddered ? But
if, as you would hold, the Word was in terror,
wherefore, when He spoke long before of the
conspiracy of the Jews, did He not flee, nay
said when actually sought, ' I am He ?' for He
could have avoided death, as He said, ' I have
power to lay down My life, and I have power
to take it again ; ' and ' No one taketh it from^
Me'°.'
55. But these affections were not proper to
the nature of the Word, as far as He was Word ;
but in the flesh which was thus affected was the
» Siavoiif, § 26 et passim. = avw Koi kotw, vid. de Deer.
14, n. 1 ; Or. ii. 34, n. 5. 3 John xi. 35 ; xii. 27 ; Matt. xxvi.
39 ; Mark xv. 34. 4 Cf. ii. 80. S § 53, n. 2. 6 Luke
xii. 4. 7 Gen. xv. 1 ; xxvi. 24 ; Exod. iv. 12, &c. ; Josh. i. 6.
8 Ps. cxviii. 6. 9 Job xxxvili. 17. LXX. ; Dc Syn. 8,
below, § 56. JO John xviii. 5 ; x. 18.
Word, O Christ's enemies and unthankful Jews !
For He said not all this prior to the flesh ; but
when the 'Word became flesh,' and has become
man, then is it written that He said this, that
is, humanly. Surely He of whom this is
written was He who raised Lazarus from the
dead, and made the water wine, and vouch-
safed sight to the man born blind, and said,
' I and My Father are one '.' If then they
make His human attributes a ground for low
thoughts concerning the Son of God, nay con-
sider Him altogether man from the earth, and
not 2 from heaven, wherefore not from His
divine works recognise the Word who is in the
Father, and henceforward renounce their self-
willed 3 irreligion? For they are given to see, how
He who did the works is the same as He who
shewed that His body was passible by His per-
mitting 4 it to weep and hunger, and to shew
other properties of a body. For while by means
of such He made it known that, though God
impassible, He had taken a passible flesh ; yet
from the works He shewed Himself the Word of
God, who had afterwards become man, saying,
' Though ye believe not Me, beholding Me clad
in a human body, yet believe the works, that ye
may know that " I am in the Father, and the
Father in Me s " ' And Christ's enemies seem
to me to shew plain shamelessness and blas-
phemy ; for, when they hear ' I and the Father
are one V they violently distort the sense, and
separate the unity of the Father and the Son ;
but reading of His tears or sweat or sufferings,
they do not advert to His body, but on account
of tliese rank in the creation Him by whom the
creation was made. What then is left for them
to differ from the Jews in ? for as the Jews
blasphemously ascribed God's works to Beel-
zebub, so also will these, ranking with the
creatures the Lord who wrought those works,
undergo the same condemnation as theirs with-
out mercy.
56. But they ought, when they hear ' I and
the Father are one,' to see in Him the oneness
of the Godhead and the propriety of the
Father's Essence; and again when they hear,
' He wept ' and the like, to say that these are
proper to the body ; especially since on each
side they have an intelligible ground, viz. that
this is written as of God and that with reference
I lb. x. 30. » avOpioTTOv oKov, Orat. iv. 35 fin.
3 Ihia-v, Orat. i. 52 fin.
4 This our Lord's suspense or permission, at His will, of the
operations of His manhood is a great principle in the doctrine
of the Incarnation. Cf. Theophylact, injoh. xi. 34. And Cyril,
/rag»i. mjoan-ii.as- Leon. £/. 35, 3. Aug. !'«/<><*«. xlix. it>. vid.
note on § 57, sub. Jin. The Eutychians perverted this doctrine,
as if it implied that our Lord was not subject to the laws of human
nature, and that He suffered merely ' by permission of the Word.'
Leont. a/. Cams. t. i. p. 563. In like manner Marcion or Manes
said that His ' flesh appeared from heaven in resemblance, <o9
ri6e^r)<Tev.' Athan. contr. Apoll. ii. 3.
5 John X. 38 ; xiv. 10. * lb. x. 30.
424
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
to His manhood. For in the incorporeal, the
properties of body had not been, unless He
had taken a body corruptible and mortal ^ ; for
mortal was Holy Mary, from whom was His
body. Wherefore of necessity when He was in
a body suffering, and weeping, and toilmg,
these things which are proper to the flesh, are
ascribed to Him together with the body. If
then He wept and was troubled, it was not the
Word, considered as the Word, who wept and
was troubled, but it was proper to the flesh ;
and if too He besought that the cup might
pass away, it was not the Godhead tliat was in
terror, but this affection too was proper to the
manhood. And that the words 'Why hast
Thou forsaken Me?' are His, according to the
foregoing explanations (though He suffered
nothing, for the Word was impassible), is
notwithstanding declared by the Evangelists ;
since the Lord became man, and these things
are done and said as from a man, that He
might Himself lighten ^ these very sufferings
of the flesh, and free it from them 3. Whence
neither can the Lord be forsaken by the
Father, who is ever in the Father, both before
He spoke, and when He uttered this cry.
Nor is it lawful to say that the Lord was in
terror, at whom the keepers of hell's gates
shuddered '^ and set open hell, and the graves
did gape, and many bodies of the saints arose
and appeared to their own people 5. Therefore
be every heretic dumb, nor dare to ascribe
terror to the Lord whom death, as a serpent,
flees, at whom demons tremble, and the sea is in
alarm ; for whom the heavens are rent and all
the powers are shaken. For behold when He
says, 'Why hast Thou forsaken Me?' the
Father shewed that He was ever and even then
in Him ; for the earth knowing its Lord ^ who
spoke, straightway trembled, and the vail was
rent, and the sun was hidden, and the rocks
were torn asunder, and the graves, as I have
said, did gape, and the dead in them arose ;
and, what is wonderful, they who were then
present and had before denied Him, then
seeing these signs, confessed that * truly He
was the Son of God?.'
57. And as to His saying, * If it be possible,
let the cup pass,' observe how, though He
tlius spake. He rebuked "■ Peter, saying, ' Thou
savourest not the things that be of God, but
those that be of men.' For He willed ^ what
* Or. i. 43, 44. notes; ii. 66, n. 7. Serm. Maj. de Fid. 9.
TertuU. de Cam. Clir. 6. 2 § 44, nn. 2, 6. 3 ii. 56, n. 5.
4 Job xxxviii. 17, LXX. 5 Vid. Matt, xxvii. 52, 53, similar
passage supr. p. 88. 6 Seo-iroTr)!/, § 14, &c.
7 Vid. Matt, xxvii. 54. Vid. Or. ii. 16 ; 35, n. 2. Cf. Leo's
Tome {Ep. 28.) 4. Nyssen, contr. Eunom. iv. p. 161. Ambros.
Epist. i. 46. n. 7. vid. Hil. Triti. x. 48. Also vid. Athan. Seni. D.
lin. Serm. Maj. de Fid. 24.
^ Matt. xvi. 23, cf. g§ 40, 41.
z [The human will of the Saviour is in absolute harinony with
He deprecated, for tlierefore had He come ;
but His was the willing (for for it He came),
but the terror belonged to the flesh. Where-
fore as man He utters this speech also, and
yet both were said by the Same, to shew that
He was God, willing in Himself, but when He
had become man, having a flesh that was in
terror. For the sake of this flesh He combined
His own will with human weakness 3, that
destroying this affection He might in turn
make man undaunted in face of death. Be-
hold then a thing strange indeed ! He to
whom Christ's enemies impute words of terror.
He by that so-called 4 terror renders men un-
daunted and fearless. And so the Blessed
Apostles after Him from such words of His
conceived so great a contempt of death, as
not even to care for those who questioned
them, but to answer, 'We ought to obey God
rather than mens.' And the other Holy
Martyrs were so bold, as to think that they
were rather passing to life than undergoing
death. Is it not extravagant then, to admire
the courage of the servants of the Word, yet
to say that the Word Himself was in terror,
through whom they despised death ? But
from that most enduring purpose and courage
of the Holy Martyrs is shewn, that the God-
head was not in terror, but the Saviour took
away our terror. For as He abolished death
by death, and by human means all human
evils, so by this so-called terror did He remove
our terror, and brought about that never more
should men fear death. His word and deed
go together. For human were the sayings,
' Let the cup pass,' and ' Why hast Thou for-
saken Me?' and divine the act whereby the
Same did cause the sun to fail and the dead to
rise. Again He said humanly, 'Now is My
soul troubled;' and He said divinely, 'I have
power to lay down My life, and power to take
it again ^.' For to be troubled was proper
the Divine, though psychologically distinct.] Cf. Anast. Hodeg.
i. p. 12.
3 It is observable that, as elsewhere we have seen Athan. speak
of the nature of the Word, and of, not the nature of man as united
to Him, but oi flesh, humanity, &c. (vid. Or. ii. 45, n. 2.) so here,
instead of speaking of two wills, he speaks of the Word's ■willing
and human weakness, terror, &c. In another place he says still
more pointedly, ' The will was of the Godhead alone ; since the
whole nature of the Word was manifested in the second Adam's
human /ortn and visible. ;?if.r/j.' contr. Apoll. ii. 10. Cf. S. Leo
on the same passage: 'The first request is one of infirmity,
the second 01 power ; the first He asked in our [character], the
second in His own. . . . The inferior will give way to the superior,"
&c. Serm- 56, 2.- vid. a similar passage in Nyssen. Antirrk. adv.
Apol. 32. vid. also 31. An obvious objection may be drawn from
such passages, as if the will ' of the flesh ' were represented as
contrary (vid. foregoing note) to the will ot the Word. The whole
of our Lord's prayer is oflfered by Him as man, because it is
a prayer ; the first part is not from Him as man, but the second,
which corrects it, from Him as God [i.e. the first part is not human
as contrasted with the second] ; but the former part is from the
sinless infirmity of our nature, the latter from His human will
expressing its acquiescence in His Father's, that is, in His Divine
Will. ' His Will,' says S. Greg. Naz. ' was not contrary to God,
being all deified, Snnhtv 6\ov.'
4 j/ojuifonei/j), vid. Oral. i. 10. S Acts v. 29.
6 John xii. 27 ; x. 18.
DISCOURSE III.
425
to the flesh, and to have power to lay down
His life 7 and take it again, when He will, was
no property of men but of the Word's power.
For man dies, not by his own power, but by
necessity of nature and against his will ; but
the Lord, being Himself immortal, but having
a mortal flesh, had power, as God, to become
separate from the body and to take it again,
when He would. Concerning this too speaks
David in the Psalm, ' Thou shalt not leave
My soul in hades, neither shalt Thou suffer Thy
Holy One to see corruption ^' For it beseemed,
that the flesh, corruptible as it was, should no
longer after its own nature remain mortal, but
because of the Word who had put it on, should
abide incorruptible. For as He, having come
in our body, was conformed to our condition,
so we, receiving Him, partake of the immor-
tality that is from Him.
58. Idle then is the excuse for stumbling,
and petty the notions concerning the Word,
of these Ario-maniacs, because it is written,
' He was troubled,' and ' He wept.' For they
seem not even to have human feeling, if they
are thus ignorant of man's nature and proper-
ties ; which do but make it the greater wonder,
that the Word should be in such a suffering
flesh, and neither prevented those who were
conspiring against Him, nor took vengeance of
those who were putting Him to death, though
He was able, He who hindered some from
dying, and raised others from the dead. And
He- let His own body suffer, for therefore did
He come, as I said before, that in the flesh
He might suffer, and thenceforth the flesh
might be made impassible and immortal 9, and
that, as we have many times said, contumely
and other troubles might determine upon Him
and come short of others after Him, being by
Him annulled utterly; and that henceforth
men might for ever abide ^° incorruptible, as a
temple of the Word ". Had Christ's enemies
thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognised
the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the
faith, they would not have made shipwreck of
the faith, nor been so shameless as to resist
those who would fain recover them from their
fall, and to deem those as enemies who are
admonishing them to be religious ",
7 This might be taken as an illustration of the ut voluit supr.
Or. i. 44, n. II. And so the expressions in the Evangelists, ' Into
Thy hands I commend My Spirit,' ' He bowed the head,' ' Yi^ gave
up the ghost,' are taken to imply that His death was His free act.
vid. Ambros. in loc. Luc. Hieron. in loc. Matt, also Athan..S"«rw.
Maj. de Fid. 4. It is Catholic doctrine that our Lord, as man,
submitted to death of His free will, and not as obeying an express
command of the Father. Cf. S. Chrysostom on John x. 18. Theo-
phylact. in Hebr. xii. 2 ; Aug. de Trin. iv. 16.
8 Ps. xvi. lo. 9 Or. ii. 65, n. 3. 'o lb. 69, n. 3. " § S3-
'2 Thus ends the exposition of texts, which forms the body
of these Orations. It is remarkable that he ends as he began,
with reference to the ecclesiastical scope, or Regula Fidei, which
has so often come under our notice, vid. Or. ii. 35, n._2. 44, n. i,
AS if distinctly to tell us, that Scripture did not so force its meaning
CHAPTER XXX.
Objections continued, as in
Chapters vii. — x.
Wlietlier the Son is begotten of the Father's will?
This virtually the same as whether once He was not?
and used by the Arians to intioduce the latter ques-
tion. The Regida Fidei answers it at once in the
negative by contrary texts. The Arians follow the
Valentinians in mahitaining a precedent will ; which
really is only exercised by God towards creatures.
Instances from Scripture. Inconsistency of Asterius.
If the Son by will, there must be another Word
before Him. If God is good, or exist, by His will,
then is the Son by His will. If He willed to have
reason or wisdom, then is His Word and Wisdom at
His will. The Son is the Living Will, and has all
titles which denote connaturality. That will which
the Father has to the Son, the Son has to the Father.
The Father wills the Son and the Son wills the
Father.
58. {continued). But'', as it seems, a heretic
is a wicked thing in truth, and in every respect
his heart is depraved^ and irreligious. For
behold, though convicted on all points, and
shewn to be utterly bereft of understanding,
they feel no shame; but as the hydra of
Gentile fable, when its former serpents were
destroyed, gave birth to fresh ones, contending
against the slayer of the old by the production
of new, so also they, hostile 3 and hateful to
God"*, as hydrass, losing their life in the ob-
jections which they advance, invent for them-
selves other questions Judaic and foolish, and
new expedients, as ii Truth were their enemy,
thereby to shew the rather that they are
Christ's opponents in all things.
59. After so many proofs against them, at
which even the devil who is their father^ had
himself been abashed and gone back, again
as from their perverse heart they mutter forth
other expedients, sometimes in whispers, some-
times with the drone? of gnats ; ' Be it so,'
say they ; ' interpret these places thus, and
gain the victory in reasonings and proofs ; still
you must say that the Son has received being
from the Father at His will and pleasure ; ' for
thus they deceive many, putting forward the
will and the pleasure of God. Now if any of
those who believe aright^ were to say this in
on the individual as to dispense with an interpreter, and as if his
own deductions were not to be viewed merely in their own logical
power, great as that power often is, but as under the authority
of the Catholic doctrines which they subserve. Vid. Or. iii. i8,
n. 3.
I This chapter is in a very different style from the foregoing
portions of this Book, and much more resembles the former two ;
not only in its subject and the mode of treating it, but in the
words introduced, e.g. eTTKnreipouai, kinvoouai, ■yoyyii^oucrt, Ka.&'
i(Aas, aTOTTOi', AeleiSioi/, ets tmv navTuin, &c. And the references
ore to the former Orations. ' See 50, n. 10 ; Scrap, i. 18.
3 flio/iaxot, de Deer. 3, n. i ; Or. ii. 32, n. 4. Vid. Dissert, by
Bucher on the word in Acts v. 39. ap. Thesaur. Theol. PkiL N, T.
t. 2.
4 fleoaTuyei?, § 40. 5 § 64, note. 6 Or, wi. 73, n. 7.
7 7repi/3ofij3o0<ri. De Deer. 14, n. i ; also de Fug. 2, 6. Naz.
Orat. 'z-j, 2. c.
8 S. Ignatius speaks of our Lord as 'Son of God according to
the will (WA.r](ia) and power of God.' ad Sviyrn. 1. S. Justin a.--
426
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
simplicity, there would be no cause to be sus-
picious of the expression, the right inten-
tion9 prevailing over that somewhat simple
use of words '°. But since the phrase is from
the heretics", and the words of heretics are
suspicious, and, as it is written, * The wicked
are deceitful,' and 'The words of the wicked
are deceit",' even though they but make signs '3^
for their heart is depraved, come let us ex-
amine this phrase also, lest, though convicted
on all sides, still, as hydras, they invent a
fresh word, and by such clever language and
specious evasion, they sow again that irre-
ligion of theirs in another way. For he who
says, ' The Son came to be at the Divine will,'
has the same meaning as another who says,
' Once He was not,' and ' The Son came to be
out of nothing,' and 'He is a creature.' But
since they are now ashamed of these phrases,
these crafty ones have endeavoured to convey
their meaning in another way, putting forth
the word ' will,' as cuttlefish their blackness,
thereby to blind the simple '*, and to keep
in mind their peculiar heresy. For whence 's
bring they ' by will and pleasure ? ' or from
what Scripture? let them say, who are so
suspicious in their words and so inventive of
irreligion. For the Father who revealed from
heaven His own Word, declared, ' This is My
beloved Son ; ' and by David He said, ' My
'God and Son according to His will, Povkrjv.' Tryph. 127, and
' begotten from the Father at His will, 0eAT)crei.' ibid. 61. and he
sayb, 6vi/a/x6i koa. jSouAj; avroO. ibid. 128. S. Clement ' issuing from
the Father's will itself quicker than light.' Gent. 10 fin. S.
Hippolytus, ' Whom God the Father, willing, /SouAijSeis, begat as
He willed, ws ■r\BiX-f\<iiv. contr Noet. 16. Origen, e/c SeA^^iaros. ap.
Justin, ad. Menn.\id. also cum filius charitatis etiam voluntatis.
Periarch. iv. 28.
9 Zi.a.voia.% interpretation, § 26, n. 9.
10 Cf. Ep. ^g. 8. and snpr. ii. 3. Also Letter 54 fin. Vid.
sujir. deDecr. 10, n. 3. And vid. Leont. contr. Nest. iii. 41. (p. 581.
Canis.) He here seems alluding to the Semi-Arians, Origen, and
perhaps the earlier Fathers.
11 Tatian had said 6eAij/iiaTi ■npoirrfiS. 6 Aoyos. Gent. 5. Ter-
tuUian had said, ' Ut primum voluit Deus ea edere, ipsum
primum protulit sermonem. adv. Prax. 6. Novatian, Ex quo,
quando ipse voluit, bermo filius natus est. de Trin. 31. And
Constit. Apost. Toi' Trpb attovioi/ ev&OKia. tov Trarpb? yevirqOeura. vii.
4T. Pseudo-Clem. Genuit Deus voluntate praecedente. Recognit.
iii. 10. Eusebius, Kara yuta^rjv Kal TrpoaipetTiv ^ouATj^el? 6 ^eds* €k
T^s roil TTttTpos /SouAt^s Kai &vva.fieo>g. Deni. iv. 3. Arius, SeAij/iiaTi
Kal /3ovA^ i/TreVrr). ap. Theod. H-E. i. 4. p. 750. vid. also de
Syn. i6. 12 Prov. xii. s, 6. LXX.
13 De Deer. 20. 14 p. 69. n. 8.
'5 And so supr. de Deer. 18, ' by what Saint have they been
taught " at will?" ' That is, no one ever taught it in the sense in
which they explained it ; that he has just said, ' He who says " at
will "has the same meaning as he who says "Once He was not.'"
Cf. below §§ 61, 64, 66. Certamly as the earlier Fathers had used
the phrase, so those who came after Arius. Thus Nyssen in the
passage in eontr. Eun. vii. referred to in the next note. And
Hilar. Syn. 37. The same father says, unitate Patris et virtute.
Psalm xci. 8. and ut voluit, ut potuit, ut scit qui genuit. Trin. iii.
4. And he addresses Him as non invidum bonomm tuorum in
Unigeniti tui nativitate. ibid. vi. 21. S. Basil too speaks of our
Lord as aviTofiorjv Kal aiiToa-ya^oi', ' from the quickening Fountain,
the Father's goodness, aya06r>)Tos. ' cotitr. Eun. ii. 25. And
Ccesarius calls Him a.ya.-n-r\v Trarpds. QucEst. 39. Vid. Ephrem. Syr.
adv. Scrut. R. vi. i. Oxf. Tra. and note there. Maximus Taurin.
says, that God is per omnipotentiam I'ater. Horn, de trad. Symb.
p. 270. ed. 1784, vid. also Chrysol. Serm. 61. Ambros. de Fid. iv. 8.
Petavius refers in addition to such passages as one just quoted from
5. Hilary, which speak of God as not invidus, so as not to com-
municate Himself, since He was able. Si non potuit, infirmus ; si
non voluit, invidus. August, contr. Maxim, iii. 7.
heart uttered a good Word;' and John He
bade say, 'In the beginning was the Word;'
and David says in the Psalm, 'With Thee is
the well of life, and in Thy hght shall we see
light ; ' and the Apostle writes, ' Who being
the Radiance of Glory,' and again, 'Who being
in the form of God,' and, 'Who is the Image
of the invisible God^^'
60. All everywhere tell us of the being of
the Word, but none of His being ' by will,' nor
at all of His making ; but they, where, I ask,
did they find will or pleasure ' precedent ^ ' to
the Word of God, unless forsooth, leaving the
Scriptures, they simulate the perverseness of
Valentinus ? For Ptolemy the Valentinian
said that the Unoriginate had a pair of attri-
butes. Thought and Will, and first He thought
and then He willed; and what He thought.
He could not put forth % unless when the
power of the Will was added. Thence the
Arians taking a lesson, wish will and pleasure
to precede the Word. For them then, let them
rival the doctrine of Valentinus ; but we, when
we read the divine discourses, found ' He was '
applied to the Son, but of Him only did we
hear as being in the Father and the Father's
Image ; while in the case of things originate
only, since also by nature these things once
were not, but afterwards came to be 3, did we
recognise a precedent will and pleasure, David
saying in the hundred and thirteenth Psalm,
' As for our God He is in heaven, He hath
done whatsoever pleased Him,' and in the
hundred and tenth, 'The works of the Lord
are great, sought out unto all His good plea-
sure ; ' and again, in the hundred and thirty-
fourth, ' Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that
did He in heaven, and in earth, and in the
sea, and in all deep places 4.' If then He be
work and thing made, and one among others,
let Him, as others, be said ' by will ' to have
come to be, and Scripture shews that these
are thus brought into being. And Asterius,
the advocate s for the heresy, acquiesces, when
he thus writes, 'For if it be unworthy of
i6 Matt. iii. ^^ ; Ps. xlv. i ; John i. i ; Ps. xxxvi. 9 ; Heb. i. 3 ;
Phil. ii. 26 ; Col. i. 15.
1 irporjyoviJ.evriv and 61 fin. The antec.edens voluntas has been
mentioned in Recogn. Clem. supr. note 11. For Ptolemy vid.
Epiph. Har. p. 215. The Catholics, who allowed that our Lord
was fleA^cret, explained it as a o-vvSpo/aos ee'Aijo-is, and not a
7rpor)70vfieVi} ; as Cyril. Trin. ii. p. 56. And with the same mean-
ing S. Ambrose, nee voluntas ante Filium nee potestas. de Fid. v.
224. And S. Gregory iSyssen, 'His immediate union, a.fi,e<rot
crvi'd(|)eta, does not exclude the Father's will, ^ovAtjo-iv, nor does
that will separate the Son from the Father.' contr. Eunom. vii.
p. 2o6, 7. vid. the whole passage. The alternative which these
words, avvSpofios and -irpornovixivri, expressed was this ; whether an
act of Divine Purpose or Will took place be/ore the Generation
of the Son, or whether both the Will and the Generation were
eternal, as the Divine Nature was eternal. Hence Bull says, with
the view of exculpating Novatian, Cum Filius dicitur ex Patre,
quando ipse voluit, nasci, Velle illud Patris aeternum fuisse intelli-
gendum. De/ens. F. N. iii. 8. § 8. ^
2 Trpo/SaAAeiv, de Syn. 16, n. 8. 3 imyeyove, Or. i. 25, 28 fin.
iii. 6. 4 Ps. cxv. 3 ; cxi. 2. LXX. ; cxxxv. 6. 5 Cf^ ii. n. i>
DISCOURSE III.
427
tlie Framer of all, to make at pleasure, let His
being pleased be removed equally in the case
of all, that His Majesty be preserved unim-
paired. Or if it be befitting God to will, then
let this better way obtain in the case of the
first Offspring. For it is not possible that it
should be fitting for one and the same God to
make things at His pleasure, and not at His
will also. In spite of the Sophist having intro-
duced abundant irreligion in his words, namely,
that the Offspring and the thing made are the
same, and that the Son is one offspring out of
ail offsprings that are. He ends with the con-
clusion that it is fitting to say that the works are
by will and pleasure.
61. Therefore if Hebe other than all things,
as has been above shewn % and through Hun
the works rather came to be, let not ' by will '
be applied to Him, or He has similarly come
to be as the things consist which through
Him come to be. For Paul, whereas he was
not before, became afterwards an Apostle ' by
the will of God^;' and our own calling, as
itself once not being, but now taking place
afterwards, is preceded by will, and, as Paul
himself says again, has been made 'according
to the good pleasure of His will 3.' And what
Moses relates, ' Let there be light,' and ' Let
the earth appear,' and ' Let Us make man,'
is, I think, according to what has gone before^",
significant of the will of the Agent. For things
which once were not but happened afterwards
from external causes, these the Framer coun-
sels to make ; but His own Word begotten
from Him by nature, concerning Him He did
not counsel beforehand ; for in Him the Father
makes, in Him frames, other things whatever
He counsels ; as also James the Apostle
teaches, saying, ' Of His own will begat He
us with the Word of truth*.' Therefore the
Will of God concerning all things, whether
they be begotten again or are brought into
being at the first, is in His Word, in whom He
both makes and begets again what seems right
to Him ; as the Apostle s again signifies,
writing to Thessalonica ; 'for this is the
will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.'
But if, in whom He makes, in Him also is
the will, and in Christ is the pleasure of the
Father, how can He, as others, come into
being by will and pleasure? For if He too
came to be. as you maintain, by will, it follows
that the will concerning Him consists in some
other Word, through whom He in turn comes
to be ; for it has been shewn that God's will is
not in the things which He brings into being,
but in Him through whom and in whom all
things made are brought to be. Next, since
it is all one to say ' By will ' and " Once He
was not,' let them make up their minds to say,
' Once He was not,' that, perceiving with
shame that times are signified by the latter,
they may understand that to say 'by will' is to
place times before the Son ; for counselling
goes before things which once were not, as* in
the case of all creatures. But if the Word
is the Framer of the creatures, and He coexists
with the Father, how can to counsel precede
the Everlasting as if He were not? for if
counsel precedes, how through Him are all
things? For rather He too, as one among
others is by will begotten to be a Son, as we
too were made sons by the Word of Truth;
and it rests, as was said, to seek another Word,
through whom He too has come to be, and
was begotten together with all things, which
were according to God's pleasure.
62. If then there is another Word of God,
then be the Son originated by a word ;
but if there be not, as is the case, but
all things by Him have come to be, which
the Father has willed, does not this expose the
many-headed ' craftiness of these men ? that
feeling shame at saying ' work,' and ' creature,'
and ' God's Word was not before His genera-
tion,' yet in another way they assert that He is
a creature, putting forward ' will,' and saying,
' Unless He has by will come to be, therefore
God had a Son by necessity and against His
good pleasure.' And who is it then who
imposes necessity on Him, O men most
wicked, who draw everything to the purpose of
your heresy? for what is contrary to will
they see ; but what is greater and transcends
it has escaped their perception. For as what
is beside purpose is contrary to will, so what
is according to nature transcends and precedes
counselling 2. A man by counsel builds a
house, but by nature he begets a son ; and
what is in building began to come into being
at will, and is external to the maker ; but the
son is proper offspring of the father's es-
sence, and is not external to him ; wherefore
neither does he counsel concerning him, lest
he appear to counsel about himself. As far
then as the Son transcends the creature, by so
much does what is by nature transcend the
will 3. And they, on hearing of Him, ought
» Cf. ii. 18—43.
S» ii. 31 seqq.
2 I Cor. i. I, &c. 3 Eph. i. 5.
4 James i. 18. S 1 Thess. v. iS.
I 64, note 4. ... . ,
8 Thus he makes the question a nugatory one, as if it did not
go to the point, and could not be answered, or might be answered
either way, as the case might be. Really Nature and Will go
loo-ether in the Divine Being, but in order, as we regard Him,
Nature is first, Will second, and the generation belongs to Nature,
not to Will. And so S7ipr. Of. i. 29 ; ii. 2. In like manner b. Epj-
phanius, Hcer. 69, 26. vid. also Ancor. 51. vid. also Ambros. cU
Fid. IV. 4. vid. others, as collected in Petav. Tnn. vi. 8. SS 14— 10.
3 Two distinct meanings may be attached to ' by will (as Dr.
Clark observes, 3"c?-i>^ Doct. p. 142. ed. 17381, either a concur-
rence or acquiescence, or a positive act. S. Cyril uses U in the
^28 FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
not to measure by will what is by nature ;
forgetting however that they are hearing about
God's Son, they dare to apply human contra-
rieties in the instance of God, ' necessity ' and
'beside purpose,' to be able thereby to deny
that there is a true Son of God. For let them
tell^ us themselves, — that God is good and
merciful, does this attach to Him by will or
not? if by will, we must consider that He
began to be good, and that His not being
good is possible ; for to counsel and choose
implies an inclination two ways, and is in-
cidental to a rational nature. But if it be too
unseemly that He should be called good
and merciful upon will, then what they have
said themselves must be retorted on them, —
' therefore by necessity and not at His plea-
sure He is good ;' and, ' who is it that
imposes this necessity on Him ?' But if it
be unseemly to speak of necessity in the case
of God, and therefore it is by nature that
He is good, much more is He, and more
truly, Father of the Son by nature and not by
will.
63. Moreover let them answer us this : — (for
against their shamelessness I wish to urge a
further question, bold indeed, but with a reli-
gious intent; be propitious, O Lord M) — the
Father Himself, does He exist, first having
counselled, then being pleased, or before
counselling? For since they are so bold in
the instance of the Word, they must receive
the like answer, that they may know that this
their presumption reaches even to the Father
Himself If then they shall themselves take
counsel about will, and say that even He is
from will, what then was He before He coun
selled, or what gained He, as ye consider, after
counselling? But if such a question be un-
seemly and self-destructive, and shocking
even to ask (for it is enough only to hear
God's Name for us to know and understand
that He is He that Is), will it not also be
against reason to have parallel thoughts con-
cerning the Word of God, and to make pre-
former sense, when he calls it avvSpo/jioi, as quoted § 60, n. i ; and
when he says (with Athan. zn/r. ) that ' the Father wills His own
subsistence, SeAtir^s ecrTi, but is not what He is from any will, ex
^ouA.i7<reius Tifos,' Thes. p. 56 ; Dr. Clark would understand it in
the latter sense, with a view of inferring that the Son was sub-
sequent to a Divine act, i.e. not eternal; but what Athan. says
leads to the conclusion, that it does not matter which sense is
taken. He does not meet the Arian objection, 'if not by will
therefore by necessity,' by speaking of a concomitant will, or
merely saying that the Almighty exists or is good, by will, with
S. Cyril, but he says that 'nature transcends will and necessity
also.' Accordingly, Petavius is even willing to allow that the
ex fiovXr\<i is to be ascribed to the yervrjo-ts in the sense which
Dr. Clark wishes, i.e. he grants that it may precede the yeViA/jcris,
i.e. in order, not in time, in the succession of our ideas, Trin. vi.
8, S§ 20, 21 ; and follows S. Austin, Trin. xv. 20. in preferring to
speak of our Lord rather as voluntas de voluntate, than, as Athan.
is led to do, asthe voluntas Dei.
I Vid. Or. i. 25, n. 2. Also Serap. i. 15, 16 init. 17, 20; iv. 8,
14. Ep. Mg. II fin. Didym. Trin. iii. 3. p. 341. Ephr. Syr. adv.
Htgr. Serm. 55 init. (t. 2. p. 557.) Facund. 7>. Cap. iii. 3 init.
tences of will and pleasure? for it is enough
in like manner only to hear the Name of
the Word, to know and understand that He
who is God not by will, has not by will but
by nature His own Word. And does it not
surpass all conceivable madness, to entertain
the thought only, that God Himself counsels
and considers and chooses and proceeds to
have a good pleasure, that He be not without
Word and without Wisdom, but have both ?
for He seems to be considering about Himself,
who counsels about what is proper to His
Essence. There being then much blasphemy
in such a thought, it will be religious to say
that things originate have come to be ' by
favour and will,' but the Son is not a work ot
will, nor has come after 2, as the creation, but
is by nature the own Offspring of God's
Essence. For being the own Word of the
Father, He allows us not to accounts of will
as before Himself, since He is Himself the
Father's Living CounseH, and Power, and
Framer of the things which seemed good to
the Father. And this is what He says of
Himself in the Proverbs ; ' Counsel is mine
and security, mine is understanding, and mine
strengths.' For as, although Himself the
' Understanding,' in which He prepared the
heavens, and Himself ' Strength and Power '
(for Christ is ' God's Power and God's Wis-
dom^), He here has altered the terms and
said, ' Mine is understanding ' and ' Mine
strength,' so while He says, ' Mine is counsel,'
He must Himself be the Living ^ Counsel of
the Father ; as we have learned from the Pro-
phet also, that He becomes ' the Angel of great
Counsel^,' and was called the good pleasure
of the Father ; for thus we must refute them,
using human illustrations 9 concerning God.
64. Therefore if the works subsist ' by will
and favour,' and the whole creature is made
' at God's good pleasure,' and Paul was called
to be an Apostle ' by the will of God,' and
our calling has come about ' by His good
pleasure and will,' and all things have come
into being through the Word, He is ex-
ternal to the things which have come to be
by will, but rather is Himself the Living
* ejriyeyofais, § 60, n. 3. 3 \oyi<Ta.aQa.i ma PovKri<riv, as
§ 66 (Latin version inexact).
4 ayaOov Trarpbs ayadov fiovKruia- Clem. Ped. iii. circ. fin.
cro(/>ta, )(^prja'r6Ty]^ , fiuvoju-t?, OeXrj^a TroLj^TOKparopiKov. Strom, V,
p. 547. Voluntas et potestas patris. TertuU. Orat. 4. Natus
e.x Patri quasi voluntas ex mente procedens. Origen. Pcriarch. i.
2. § 6. S. Jerome notices the same interpretation of ' by the will
of God' in the beginning of Comment, in Ephes. But cf. Aug.
Trin. xv. 20. And so Caesarius, o-yamj cf ayaTnj?. Qu. 39.
5 Prov. viii. 14. _ 61 Cor. i. 24.
7 i,u>(7a. Pov\yj. supr. Or. ii. 2. Cyril in Joan. p. 213. ^Uttra.
Svvapn.?. Sabell. Greg. 5. c. C,i>iaa. eiKiav. Naz. Orat. 30, 20. c.
^a)cra ivepysLa. Syn. Antioch. ap. RoTitli. Keliqu. t. 2. p. 469.
^ai(ra 'icr;(u?. Cyril. 2'« Joan, p. 951. (uxra (ro(^ia. Origen. contr.
Cels. iii. fin. ^wv \6yos. Origen. ibid, fuv dpyavov (heretically)
Euseb. Dent. iv. 3.
8 Is. ix. 6, 9 Or. ii. 33, n. 12.
DISCOURSE III.
429
Counsel of the Father, by which all these
things have come to be; by which David
also gives thanks in the seventy-second Psalm.
* Thou hast holden me by my right hand ;
Thou shalt guide me with Thy Counsel ^'
How then can the Word, being the Counsel
and Good Pleasure of the Father, come into
being Himself ' by good pleasure and will,' like
every onfe else ? unless, as I said before, in their
madness they repeat that He has come into
being through Himself, or through some other^.
Who then is it through whom He has come to
be ? let them fashion another Word ; and let
them name another Christ, rivalling the doctrine
of Valentinus 3 ; for Scripture it is not. And
though they fashion another, yet assuredly he
too comes into being through some one ; and
so, while we are thus reckoning up and in-
vestigating the succession of them, the many-
headed '^ heresy of the Atheists s is discovered
to issue in polytheism ^ and madness un-
limited ; in the which, wishing the Son to be
a creature and from nothing, they imply the
same thing in other words by pretending the
words will and pleasure, which rightly belong
to things originate and creatures. Is it not
irreligious then to impute the characteristics
of things originate to the Framer of all ? and
is it not blasphemous to say that will was in
the Father before the Word ? for if will pre-
cedes in the Father, the Son's words are not
true, ' I in the Father ;' or even if He is in the
Father, yet He will hold but a second place,
and it became Him not to say ' I in the
Father,' since will was before Him, in which
'all things were brought into being and He
Himself subsisted, as you hold. For though
He excel in glory. He is not the less one of
the things which by will come into being.
And, as we have said before, if it be so, how
is He Lord and they servants 7 ? but He is
Lord of all, because He is one with the Father's
Lordship ; and the creation is all in bondage,
since it is external to the Oneness of the
Father, and, whereas it once was not, was
brought to be.
65. Moreover, if they say that the Son is by
will, they should say also that He came to be
by understanding ; for I consider understand-
ing and will to be the same. For what a man
counsels, about that also he has understanding;
and what he has in understanding, that also he
1 Ps. Ixxiii. 23, 24.
2 Si irdpov Tii/os. This idea has been urged against the Ariaiis
again and again, as just above, § 6i ; e.g. cfe Deo: 8, 24; Of . i.
IS, below 65, su6. Jin. vid. also Epiph. Har. 76. p. 951. Basil.
contr. Eunom. ii. 11. c. 17, a. &c. 3 § 60.
4 ■na\vK.i^a\o% a'ip€(ri,s. And SO rroAv/c. Travovpyia, § 62. The
allusion is to the hydra, with its ever-springing heads, as intro-
duced § 58, n. 5. and with a special allusion to Asterius who is
mentioned, § 60, and in de Syn. 18. is called itoKvK. o-o(^io-ti)s.
5 Or. ii. A3, n. 4. 6 § 16, n. 4. 7 Or. L 57 ; ii. a^.
counsels. Certainly the Saviour Himself has
made them correspond, as being cognate,
when He says, 'Counsel is mine and security;
mine is understanding, and mine strength '.'
For as strength and security are the same (for
they mean one attribute), so we may say that
Understanding and Counsel are the same,
which is the Lord. But these irreligious men
are unwilling that the Son should be Word
and Living Counsel ; but they fable that there
is with God=, as if a habits, coming and
going 4, after the manner of men, understand-
ing, counsel, wisdom ; and they leave nothing
undone, and they put forward the ' Thought '
and ' Will ' of Valentinus, so that they may but
separate the Son from the Father, and may
call Him a creature instead of the proper
Word of the Father. To them then must be
said what was said to Simon Magus ; ' the
irreligion of Valentinus perish with you s ;'
and let every one rather trust to Solomon,
who says, that the Word is Wisdom and
Understanding. For he says, ' The Lord
by Wisdom founded the earth, by Under-
standing He established the heavens.' And
as here by Understanding, so in the Psalms,
' By the Word of the Lord were the heavens
made.' And as by the Word the heavens,
so ' He hath done whatsoever pleased Him.'
And as the Apostle writes to Thessalo-
nians, ' the will of God is in Christ Jesus ^'
The Son of God then. He is the 'Word'
and the 'Wisdom;' He the 'Understanding'
and the Living 'Counsel;' and in Him is
the ' Good Pleasure of the Father ;' He is
' Truth ' and ' Light ' and ' Power ' of the
Father. But if the Will of God is Wisdom and
Understanding, and the Son is Wisdom, he
who says that the Son is ' by will,' says virtually
that Wisdom has come into being in wisdom,
and the Son is made in a son, and the
Word created through the Word ^ ; which is
incompatible with God and is opposed to His
Scriptures. For the Apostle proclaims the
Son to be the own Radiance and Expres-
sion, not of the Father's will^, but of His
Essence 9 Itself, saying, 'Who being the Ra-
diance of His glory and the Expression of His
* Prov. viii. 14.
» irepi Tov Sedi/. vid. de Deer. 22, n. i ; Or. 1. 15. Also Orai. i.
27, where (n. 2 a.), it is mistranslated. Euseb. Eccl. TJieol. iii.
p. 150. vid. de Syn. 34, n. 7.
3 l^iv. vid. Or. ii. 38, n. 6 ; iv. 2, n. 7.
4 <TVfi^a.i.vovcrav Kal a.TTO(TVfi.pai,vov(Tav, vid. de Deer. 11, n. 7,
and 22, n. 9, <nifAj3a/ia, Euseb. £cc/. Theol. iii. p. 150. in the same,
though a technical sense, vid. also Serap. i. 26; Naz. Orat. 31,
15 fin. 5 Acts viii. 20. * Prov. iii. 19 ; Ps. xxxiii. 6 ;
cxxxv. 6, cxv. 3 ; I Thess. v. 18. 7 Read ' a word,' cf. p. 394,
n. 6. 8 £)e Syn. 53, n. 9.
9 ovtria. and vTrdo-Too-is are in these passages made synonymous ;
and so in/r. Orat. iv. i, f. And in iv. 33 fin. to the Son is attri-
buted 17 TraTptKi) iiwocTTaa-is. Vid. also aii Afros. 4. quoted^w/r.
Exc. A, pp. 77, sqq. 'Ytt. might have been expected too in the
discussion in the beginning of Orat. iii. aid Athan. distinguish
between them. It is remarkable how seldom it occurs at all in
430
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
Subsistence ^°.' But if, as we have said before,
the Father's Essence and Subsistence be not
from will, neither, as is very plain, is what is
proper to the Father's Subsistence from will ;
for such as, and so as, that Blessed Subsist-
ence, must also be the proper Offspring from
It. And accordingly the Father Himself said
not, ' This is the Son originated at My will,'
nor ' the Son whom I have by My favour,'
but simply 'My Son,' and more than that,
*in whom I am well pleased;' meaning by
this, This is the Son by nature ; and ' in Him
is lodged My will about what pleases Me.'
66. Since then the Son is by nature and
not by will, is He without the pleasure of the
Father and not with the Father's will? No,
verily; but the Son is with the pleasure of the
Father, and, as He says Himself, 'The Father
loveth the Son, and sheweth Him all things'.'
For as not ' from will ' did He begin to be
gootl, nor yet is good without will and plea-
sure (for what He is, that also is His pleasure),
so also that the Son should be, though it came
not 'from will,' yet it is not without His
pleasure or against His purpose. For as His
own Subsistence is by His pleasure, so also
the Son, being proper to His Essence, is not
without His pleasure. Be then the Son the
object of the Father's pleasure and love ;
and thus let every one religiously account of ^
the pleasure and the not-unwillingness of God.
For by that good pleasure wherewith the Son
is the object of the Father's pleasure, is the
Father the object of the Son's love, pleasure,
and honour ; and one is the good pleasure
which is from Father in Son, so that here too
we may contemplate the Son in the Father
and the Father in the Son. Let no one then,
with Valentinus, introduce a precedent will ;
nor let any one, by this pretence of ' counsel,'
intrude between the Only Father and the
Only Word ; for it were madness to place
will and consideration between them. For it
is one thing to say, ' Of will He came to
be,' and another, that the Father has love
and good pleasure towards His Son who is
His own by nature. For to say, ' Of will He
came to be,' in the first place implies that
once He was not ; and next it implies an
incUnation two ways, as has been said, so that
one might suppose that the Father could even
not will the Son. But to say of the Son, ' He^
might not have been,' is an irreligious pre
sumption reaching even to the Essence of
the Father, as if what is His own might
these Orations, except as contained in Heb. i. 3. Vid. also p. 70,
note 13. Yet the phrase rpets uTrotrTaorets is certainly found in
Illud Omn. fin. and in Incarti. c. Arian. 10. (if genuine) and
apparently in Expos. Fid. 2. Vid. also Orat. iv. 25 init.
" Heb. i. 3. I John iii. 35 ; v. 20. » 63,. n. 3.
not have been. For it is the same as saying,
'The Father might not have been good.' And
as the Father is always good by nature, so
He is always generative 3 by nature ; and to
say, ' The Father's good pleasure is the Son,'
and ' The Word's good pleasure is the Father,'
implies, not a precedent will, but genuineness
of nature, and propriety and likeness of Es-
sence. For as in the case of the 'radiance
and light one might say, that there is no will
preceding radiance in the light, but it is its
natural offspring, at the pleasure of the light
which begat it, not by will and consideration,
but in nature and truth, so also in the instance
of the Father and the Son, one might
rightly say, that the Father has love and
good pleasure towards the Son, and the Son
has love and good pleasure towards the Father.
67. Therefore call not the Son a work of
good pleasure ; nor bring in the doctrine of
Valentinus into the Church ; but be He the
Living Counsel, and Offspring in truth and
nature, as the Radiance from the Light. For
thus has the Father spoken, ' My heart ut-
tered a good Word ; ' and the Son con-
formably, ' I in the Father and the Father
in Mel' But if the Word be in the heart,
where is will? and if the Son in the Father,
where is good pleasure? and if He be Will
Himself, how is counsel in Will ? it is un-
seemly; lest the Word come into being in
a word, and the Son in a son, and Wisdom
in a wisdom, as has been repeatedly s said.
For the Son is the Father's All ; and nothing
was in the Father before the Word ; but in
the Word is will also, and through Him the
objects of will are carried into effect, as holy
Scriptures have shewn. And I could wish
that the irreligious men, having fallen into
such want of reason^ as to be considering
about will, would now ask their childbear-
ing women no more, whom they used to ask,
' Hadst thou a son before conceiving him??'
but the father, ' Do ye become fathers by
counsel, or by the natural law of your will?'
or ' Are your children like your nature and
essence ^?' that, even from fathers they may
learn shame, from whom they assumed this
proposition? about birth, and from whom
they hoped to gain knowledge in point. For
they will reply to them, ' What we beget, is
like, not our good pleasure ^°, but like our-
selves; nor become we parents by previous
counsel, but to beget is proper to our nature;
since we too are images of our fathers.' Either
3 Or. 1. 14,, n. 4; u. 2, n. 3. 4 Ps. xlv. i ; John xiv. 10.
5 § 2, n.^6, &c. 6 -^^ Deer. i. n. 6. 7 Or. i. 26.
8 Ty\<; orxrCai ofx-oia, vid. Or. i. 21, n. 8. Also ii. 42, b. iii. 11,
14 sub. Jin., 17, n, 5. 9 Or. ii. i, n. 13. 'o 65, n. 8.
DISCOURSE III.
43 i
then let them condemn themselves ^^, and cease
asking women about the Son of God, or let
them learn from them, that the Son is be-
gotten not by will, but in nature and truth.
Becoming and suitable to them is a refutation
from human instances ^% since the perverse-
minded men dispute in a human way concern-
ing the Godhead. Why then are Christ's ene-
mies still mad? for this, as well as their other
pretences, is shewn and proved to be mere
fantasy and fable; and on this account, they
ought, however late, contemplating the preci-
pice of folly down which they have fallen,
to rise again from the depth and to flee the
snare of the devil, as we admonish them. For
Truth is loving unto men and cries con-
tinually, 'If because of My clothing of the
body ye believe Me not, yet believe the works,
" De Deer, 3, n. 2 ; Orat. i. 27, ii. 4 ; Apol. c. Ar. 36.
" Cf. 63, n. 9.
that ye may know tha'. "I am in the Father
and the Father in Me," and " I and the Father
are one," and " He that hath seen Me hath
seen the Father ^3."' But the Lord according
to His wont is loving to man, and would fain
'help them that are fallen,' as the praise of
David ^4 says; but the irreligious men, not
desirous to hear the Lord's voice, nor bearing
to see Him acknowledged by all as God and
God's Son, go about, miserable men, as beetles,
seeking with their father the devil pretexts
for irreligion. What pretexts then, and whence
will they be able next to find? unless they
borrow blasphemies of Jews and Caiaphas,
and take atheism from Gentiles? for the
divine Scriptures are closed to them, and from
every part of them they are refuted as insensate
and Christ's enemies.
«3 John X. 38, 30 ; xiv. g ; cf. § s, n. 3. '4 Ps. cxlvi. 8.
EXCURSUS C
INTRODUCTORY' TO THE FOURTH DISCOURSE
AGAINST THE ARIANS.
The fourth Discourse, as has been already observed (p. 304), stands on a footing of
its own. To begin with, it is not quoted in antiquity, as the first three are, as part of the work
of Ath. against the Arians (details in Newman, p. 499). Again, the fact that not only the
£p. ^g., but even the dubious de Incar. c. Arian., are in some MSB. included in the Orationes,
while our present oration appears sometimes as the 'fifth' sometimes as the 'sixth,' cast a
shade of doubt upon its claim to be included in the ' Pentabiblus against the Arians ' referred
to by Photius. In addition to these external considerations, Newman lays stress on the
apparent want of continuity in its argument ; on its non-conformity to the structural plan of
Orat. i. — iii., on the use of the term onoovaiov (§§ 10, 22, contrast Orat. i. § 9, p. 31 1, note 12) ; on
certain peculiarities of style which seem characteristic of disjointed notes rather than of a syste-
matic treatise ; on the reference to ' Eusebius ' (of Csesarea) as apparently still living (§ 8) ;
and on the general absence of personal reference to opponents, while yet a definite and extant
system seems to be combated.
Now a comparison with the works of Eusebius against Marcellus leaves little doubt
that the system combated by Athan. is that of the latter (described briefly Prolegg. ch. ii.
§ 3 (2) c).
After laying down as a thesis (§ i) the substantive existence of the divine Word or
Wisdom, Athan. proceeds to combat the idea that the Word has no personality distinct from
that of the Father. Setting aside the alternative errors of Sabellius (§ 2) and Arius (§ 3), he
taxes with the consequence of involving two 'Apx^' a view that the Word had a substantive ex-
istence and was then united to the Father (cf. Euseb. c. Marcell. 32 a, 108 a, 106 c, d). This
consequence can only be avoided by falling into the Sabellian alternative of a 0f6j fiiojuns (cf.
I The above Excursus is substituted for the longer introduc-
tion of Newman (republished in Latin in his Tracts, Theological
and Ecclesiastical 1 1872), and is in the main a condensation of
the more recent and final dis.cussion of Zahn (Marcellus. 1867,
pp. 198 segg.). The result of the latter is to confirm the main con-
tention of Newman, viz. that the sy^tem, rather than the person,
of Marcellus is throughout in view. Earlier discu!;sions pointins
the same way are cited : ' In Eusebii contra Marcellum libros
Observationes, auctore K.S.C.,' Lips. 1787 (cited by Newman);
Rettberg, Marcelliana, Praef. p. 7 ; Kuhn, Kathoi. Dogin. ii.
p. 344, note 1 (by Zahn).
432 EXCURSUS C.
Tertullian's ' Deum versipellem '), unless the true solution, that of the eternal divine yiwrfo-is,
be accepted (§ 3 worked out in 4, 5). The argument, apparently interrupted by an anti-Arian
digression §§ 6, 7, is resumed § 8, whence it proceeds without break to § 24. Eusebius,
insisting against Marcellus on the eternity of Christ's Kingdom, inconsistently defends those
who deny the eternity of His Person. But if so, how inconsistent are those who deny the Son
any pre-existence, while yet repelling the Arian formulae with indignation ! In §§ 9 — 12, taking
Joh. X. 30 as his text, Athan. asks his opponents in ivhat sense Christ and the Father 'are one,'
distinguishing from his own answer that of Sabellius (9, 10), and that of Marcellus (11, 12),
whom he presses with the paradoxical character of his explanation of the divine yewrja-is. In
§§ 13, 14, he examines the (Marcellian, nol Sabelliaii) doctrine of 7rXarvo-/j,6!? and o-hcttoXj?, charging
it with Sabellianism as its consequence. Next (§§ 15 — 24) Ath. turns upon the radically weak
point of the system of Marcellus {Prolegg. ubi supra), and asks What do his followers mean by
'the Son?' Do they mean merely {a) the man, Christ (§ 20, Photinus), or {b) the union of
Word and Man, or {c) the Word regarded as Incarnate? The latter was the answer (§ 22) of
Marcellus himself This last point leads to a discussion (§ 24) of those O. T. passages on
which Marcellus notoriously relied. § 25, which Zahn understands as a direct polemic against
Sabellius, is far more probably, as Newman maintains in his note, a supplemental argument
against Marcellianism, for the view combated is said to lead inevitably to Sabellianism. The
concluding portion, §§ 26 — 36, turns the argument of § 24, that Scripture declares the identity
of Son and Word, against those who (adopting alternative {a) supra) drift from Marcellianism
toward the Samosatene rather than toward the Sabellian position (on the connection of the
two see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) a and c). Even here, the name of Photinus, to whose position
the section specially applies, is significantly withheld.
Such is the course of the argument in the Fourth Oration; and with the exception of §§ 6,
7, and again possibly § 25, it forius a homogeneous, if not a finished and elaborated piece of
argument. Its date and composition may be left an open question ; but its purpose as an ap-
pendix to Orat. i. — iii., is we think open to little doubt {supr. p. 304). Of Sabellius, who left
no writings % the age of Athanasius knew little, except that he identified Father and Son (utWaro)/)),
and denied the Trinity of Persons. Most that is told us of Sabellius from the fourth century
onwards requires careful sifting, in order to eliminate what really belongs to Marcellus, Pho-
tinus, or others who were taxed with Sabellianism, and combated as ' Sabellians.' But with
the simple patri-passianism which is the one undoubted element in the teaching of Sabellius,
Marcellus had little or nothing in common. The criticism of Marcellus that Sabellius ' knew
not the Word ' reveals the true difference between them. To SabeUius, creation and redemp-
tion were the work of the one God under successive changes of manifestation ; to Marcellus,
they were tlie realisation of a process eternally latent in God ; but both Marcellus and
apparently Sabellius referred to the divine Nature what the theology of the Church has
consistently referred to the divine Will.
The following table will make the foregoing scheme clear.
§ I. Introductory. Thesis : the co-eternal personality of the Son or Word.
§§ 2 — 5. Those who, while rejecting Arianism, would avoid Sabellianism, must accept the eternal divine
Generation of the .Sou.
§§ 6, 7. [Digression : the humiliation of the Word explained against the Arians.]
§ 8. The eternity of Christ's Kingdom and of His Person implied each in the other.
§§ 9 — 12. In what sense Christ and the Father are, and are not, one. The divine ■yivvt](ri<s.
§§ 13, 14, The doctrine of divine dilatation and contraction denies true personal distinctions in the God-
head.
§§ 15 — 24. The Son and the Word identical. Refutation of the three alternative suppositions, and of the
argument alleged from the O. T. in support of them.
§ 25. Final refutation of the doctrine of dilatation.
§§ 26 — 36. The Scriptural identification of Son and Word refutes the restriction of the former title to the
man Jesus.
" The Articles Sabellianism and Sabellius (both sith.fin.") in D.C.B. vol. iv., state the contrary, but the present writer follows
the standard discussion of Zahn, of which the learned articles in question do not seem to take accotmt.
DISCOURSE IV.
§§ I — S- The substantiality of the Word proved from
Scripture. If the One Origin be substantial, Its Word is
substantial. Unless the Word and Son be a second
Origin, or a work, or an attribute (and so God be
compounded), or at the same time Father, or involve
a second nature in God, He is from the Father's
Essence and distinct from Him. Illustration of John
X. 30, drawn from Deut. iv. 4.
I. The Word is God from God; for 'the
Word was God ^,' and again, ' Of whom are the
Fathers, and of whom Christ, who is God
over all, blessed for ever. Amen^.' And
since Christ is God from God, and God's
Word, Wisdom, Son, and Power, therefore
but One God is declared in the divine Scrip-
tures. For the Word, being Son of the One
God, is referred to Him of whom also He is ;
so that Father and Son are two, yet the Monad
of the Godhead is indivisible and inseparable.
And thus too we preserve One Beginning of
Godhead and not two Beginnings, whence there
is strictly a Monarchy. And of this very Begin^
ning the Word is by nature Son, not as if
another beginning, subsisting by Himself, nor
having come into being externally to that
Beginning, lest from that diversity a Dyarchyand
Polyarchy should ensue ; but of the one Begin-
ning He is own Son, own Wisdom, own
Word, existing from It. For, according to
John, ' in ' that ' Beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God,' for the Beginning was
God ; and since He is from It, therefore also
* the Word was God.' And as there is one
Beginning and therefore one God, so one is that
Essence and Subsistence which indeed and
truly and really is, and which said ' I am that
I am 3,' and not two, that there be not two
Beginnings ; and from the One, a Son in nature
and truth, is Its own Word, Its Wisdom, Its
Power, and inseparable from It. And as there
is not another essence, lest there be two
Beginnings, so the Word which is from that One
Essence has no dissolution, nor is a sound
significative, but is an essential Word and
essential Wisdom, which is the true Son.
' John i. I.
VOL. IV.
» Rom. ix. 5.
3 Exod. iii. 14.
For were He not essential, God will be
speaking into the airs*, and having a body,
in nothing differently from men ; but since He
is not man, neither is His Word according to
the infirmity of man 4. For as the Beginning
is one Essence, so Its Word is one, essen-
tial, and subsisting, and Its Wisdom. For as
He is God from God, and Wisdom from
the Wise, and Word from the Rational, and
Son from Father, so is He from Subsistence
Subsistent, and from Essence Essential and
Substantive, and Being from Being.
2. Since were He not essential Wisdom
and substantive Word, and Son existing, but
simply Wisdom and Word and Son in the
Father, then the Father Himself would have
a nature compounded of AVisdom and Word.
But if so, the forementioned absurdities would
follow; and He will be His own Father,
and the Son begetting and begotten by Him-
self; or Word, Wisdom, Son, is a name only,
and He does not subsist who owns, or rather
who is, these titles. If then He does not
subsist, the names are idle and empty, unless
we say that God is Very Wisdoms and Very
Word. But if so. He is His own Father
and Son ; Father, when Wise, Son, when
Wisdom ; but these things are not in God
as a certain quality ; away with the dishonour-
able^ thought ; for it will issue in this, that
God is compounded of essence and quality?.
For whereas all quality is in essence, it will
clearly follow that the Divine Monad, indi-
visible as it is, must be compound, being
severed into essence and accident^. We
must ask then these headstrong men ; The
Son was proclaimed as God's Wisdom and
Word ; how then is He such ? if as a quality,
the absurdity has been shewn ; but if God
is that Very Wisdom, then it is the absurdity
of Sabellius ; therefore He is so, as an Off-
spring in a proper sense from the Father
3" I Cor. xiv. 9. 4 Or. ii. 7.
5 Or. ii. 19, n. 3, and below, g 4.
6 § g. iCi.ad Afros. 8. 8 Cf. Euseb. Eccl.
Theol. p. 121. His opinion was misstated supr., p. 164 sg.^ note 9.
Ff
434
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
Himself, according to the illustration of light.
For as there is light from fire, so from God
is there a Word, and Wisdom from the Wise,
and from the Father a Son. For in this way
the Monad remains undivided and entire, and
Its Son, Word not unessential, nor not sub-
sisting, but essential truly. For were it not so,
all that is said would be said notionally ^ and
verbally^. But if we must avoid that absurdity,
then is a true Word essential. For as there
is a Father truly, so Wisdom truly. In this
respect then they are two; not because, as
Sabellius said, Father and Son are the same,
but because the Father is Father and the Son
Son, and they are one, because He is Son
of the Essence of the Father by nature,
existing as His own Word. This the Lord
said, viz. 'I and the Father are OneS;' for
neither is the Word separated from the Father,
nor was or is the Father ever Wordless ; on
this account He says, ' I in the Father and the
Father in Mel'
3. And again, Christ is the Word of God.
Did He then subsist by Himself, and subsisting,
has He become joined to the Father, or did
God make Him or call Him His Word ? If
the former, I mean if He subsisted by Him-
self and is God, then there are two Beginnings ;
and moreover, as is plain, He is not the Father's
own, as being not of the Father, but of
Himself. But if on the contrary He be made
externally, then is He a creature. It remains
then to say that He is from God Himself; but
if so, that which is from another is one thing,
and that from which it is, is a second ; accord-
ing to this then there are two. But if they be
not two, but the names belong to the same, cause
and effect will be the same, and begotten and
begetting, which has been shewn absurd in
the instance of Sabellius. But if He be from
Him, yet not another. He will be both be-
getting and not begetting; begetting because
He produces from Himself, and not begetting,
because it is nothing other than Himself. But
if so, the same is called Father and Son
notionally. But if it be unseemly so to say,
Father and Son must be two; and they are
one, because the Son is not from without, but
begotten of God. But if any one shrinks from
saying 'Offspring,' and only says that the Word
exists with God, let such a one fear lest,
shrinking from what is said in Scripture, he
fall into absurdity, .making God a being of
double nature. For not granting that the
Word is from the Monad, but simply as if He
were joined to the Father, he introduces
a twofold essence, and neither of them Father
of the other. And the same of Power. And
I Cf. ii. 3S, n. a.
a Cf. i. 52, n. I.
4 lb. xiv. 10.
3 John X. 30.
we may see this more clearly, if we con-
sider it with reference to the Father ; for
there is One Father, and not two, but from
that One the Son. As then there are not two
Fathers, but One, so not two Beginnings, but
One, and from that One the Son essential.
4. But the Arians we must ask contrariwise :
(for the Sabellianisers must be confuted from
the notion of a Son, and the Arians from that
of a Father :) let us say then — Is God wise and
not word-less : or on the contrary, is He
wisdom-less and word-less ^ ? if the latter,
there is an absurdity at once ; if the former,
we must ask, how is He wise and not
word-less ? does He possess the Word and the
Wisdom from without, or from Himself? If
from without, there must be one who first gave
to Him, and before He received He was wis-
dom-less and word-less. But if from Himself,
it is plain that the Word is not from nothing,
nor once was not ; for He was ever ; since He
of whom He is the Image, exists ever. But if
they say that He is indeed wise and not word-
less, but that He has in Himself His own
wisdom and own word, and that, not Christ,
but that by which He made Christ, we
must answer that, if Christ in that word was
brought to be, plainly so were all things ; and
it must be He of whom John says, * All things
were made by Him,' and the Psalmist, ' In
Wisdom hast Thou made them all ^' And
Christ will be found to speak untruly, 'I in
the Father,' there being another in the Father.
And ' the Word became flesh 3 ' is not true ac-
cording to them. For if He in whom 'all
things came to be,' Himself became flesh, but
Christ is not in the Father, as Word 'by
whom all things came to be,' then Christ
has not become flesh, but perhaps Christ was
named Word. But if so, first, there will be an-
other besides the name, next, all things were not
by Him brought to be, but in that other, in whom
Christ also was made. But if they say that
Wisdom is in the Father as a quality or
that He is Very Wisdom *, the absurdities
will follow already mentioned. For He will
be compounds, and will prove His own
Son and Father ^. Moreover, we must con-
fute and silence them on the ground, that
the Word which is in God cannot be
a creature nor out of nothing; but if once
a Word be in God, then He must be Christ
who says, ' I am in the Father and the Father
in Me?,' who also is therefore the Only-be-
gotten, since no other was begotten from Him.
This is One Son, who is Word, Wisdom,
Power ; for God is not compounded of these,
I Or. i. 19, n. 5. * John i. 3 ; Ps. civ. 24. 3 John i. 14.
4 § a. 5 § 9, fin. 6 § 10. 7 John xiv. 10.
DISCOURSE IV.
43S
but is generative ^ of them. For as He frames
the creatures by the Word, so according to the
nature of His own Essence has He the
Word as an Offspring, through whom He
frames and creates and dispenses all things.
For by the Word and the Wisdom all things
have come to be, and all things together remain
according to His ordinance?. And the same
concerning the word ' Son ;' if God be without
Son ^° then is He without Work ; for the Son
is His Offspring through whom He works " ;
but if not, the same questions and the same
absurdities will follow their audacity.
5. From Deuteronomy; 'But ye that did
attach yourselves unto the Lord your God are
alive every one of you this day^' From this
we may see the difference, and know that the
Son of God is not a creature. For the Son
says, ' I and the Father are One,' and, ' I in
the Father, and the Father in Me ; ' but things
originate, when they make advance, are at-
tached unto the Lord. The Word then is in
the Father as being His own ; but things
originate, being external, are attached, as being
by nature foreign, and attached by free choice.
For a son which is by nature, is one = with him
who begat him; but he who is from without, and
is made a son, will be attached to the family.
Therefore he immediately adds, ' What nation
is there so great who hath God drawing nigh
unto them 3 ?' and elsewhere, ' I a God drawing
nigh 4;' for to things originate He draws nigh,
as being strange to Him, but to the Son, as be-
ing His own, He does not draw nigh, but
He is in Him. And the Son is not attached
to the Father, but co-exists with Him ; whence
also Moses says again in the same Deuter-
onomy, ' Ye shall obey His voice, and apply
yourselves unto Him s ; ' but what is applied,
is applied from without
§§ 6, 7. When the Word and Son hungered, wept, and
was wearied, He acted as our Mediator, taking on Him
what was ours, that He might impart to us what
was His.
6. But in answer to the weak and human
notion of the Arians, their supposing that the
Lord is in want, when He says, ' Is given unto
Me,' and ' I received,' and if Paul says, ' Where-
fore He highly exalted Him,' and ' He set
Him at the right hand %' and the like, we
must say that our Lord, being Word and Son
of God, bore a body, and became Son of Man,
that, having become Mediator between God
and men, He might minister the things of
God to us, and ours to God. When then He
8 iii. 66, n. 3. 9 Ps. cxix. 91. «> Or. ii. 2, n. 3. '» Or.
ii. 41 ; iii. 11, n. 4. ' Deut. iv. 4. 2 ;. ,6, n. 2. 3 Deut. iv.
7, LXX. 4 Jer. xxiii. 23, LXX. S Deut. xiii. 4.
« Matt, xxviii. 18 ; John x. 18 ; Phil. ii. 9 ; Eph. i. m. ' '°
F f 2
IS said to hunger and weep and weary, and to
cry Eloi, Eloi, which are our human affections,
He receives them from us and offers to the
Father ^ interceding for us, that in Him they
may be annulled 3. And when it is said, ' All
power is given unto Me,' and 'I received,'
and 'Wherefore God highly exalted Him,'
these are gifts given from God to us through
Him. For the Word was never in want*, nor
has come into being S; nor again were men suffi-
cient to minister these things for themselves,
but through the Word they are given to us ;
therefore, as if given to Him, they are im-
parted to us. For this was the reason of His
becoming man, that, as being given to Him,
they might pass on to us ^. For of such
gifts mere man had not become worthy ; and
again the mere Word had not needed them 7;
the Word then was united to us, and then
imparted to us power, and highly exalted us ^.
For the Word being in man, highly exalted
man himself; and, when the Word was in
man, man himself received. Since then, the
Word being in flesh, man himself was exalted,
and received power, therefore these things
are referred to the Word, since they were
given on His account ; for on account of the
Word in man were these gifts given. And as
'the Word became flesh 9,' so also man him-
self received the gifts which came through the
Word. For all that man himself has received,
the Word is said to have received '° ; that it
might be shewn, that man himself, being un-
worthy to receive, as far as his own nature is
concerned, yet has received because of the
Word become flesh. Wherefore if anything
be said to be given to the Lord, or the like,
we must consider that it is given, not to Him
as needing it, but to man himself through
the Word. For every one interceding for
another, receives the gift in his own person,
not as needing, but on his account for whom
he intercedes.
7. For as He takes our infirmities, not being
infirm ^, and hungers not hungering, but sends
up what is ours that it may be abolished, so
the gifts which come from God instead of our
infirmities, doth He too Himself receive, that
man, being united to Him, may be able to
partake them. Hence it is that the Lord says,
' All things whatsoever Thou hast given Me,
I have given them,' and again, ' I pray for
them^.' For He prayed for us, taking on
Him what is ours, and He was giving what He
received. Since then, the Word being united _
to man himself, the Father, regarding Him, '
2 De Deer. 14 ; Or. ii. 8, 9. 3 Or. iii. 33, n. 6, and 34.
4 Or. i. 43. S Or. i. 43 ; i>- 65, 67. 6 Or. 1. 42, 45.
7 Or. i. 48 ; iii. 38. 8 Or. i. 41, 42. 9 John 1. 14.
10 iii. 38. ' Or. ii. 60 ; iii. 37. » John xvii. 7—9.
436
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
vouchsafed to man to be exalted, to have all
power and the like ; therefore are referred to the
Word Himself, and are as if given to Him, all
things which through Him we receive. For as
He for our sake became man, so we for His
sake are exalted. It is uo absurdity then,
if, as for our sake He humbled Himself, so
also for our sake He is said to be highly
exalted. So ' He gave to Him,' that is, ' to us
for His sake ;' ' and He highly exalted Him 3,'
, that is, ' us in Him.' And the Word Himself,
when we are exalted, and receive, and are
succoured, as if He Himself were exalted and
received and were succoured, gives thanks to
the Father, referring what is ours to Himself,
and saying, * All things, whatsoever Thou hast
given Me, I have given unto them *.'
§ 8. Arians date the Son's beginning earlier than
Marcellus, &g.
8. Eusebius and his fellows, that is, the
Ario-maniacs, ascribing a beginning of being
to the Son, yet pretend not to wish Him to
have a beginning of kingship s. But this is
ridiculous ; for he who ascribes to the Son a
beginning of being, very plainly ascribes to
Him also a beginning of reigning ; so
blind are they, confessing what they deny.
Again, those who say that the Son is only a
name, and that the Son of God, that is, the
Word of the Father, is unessential and non-
subsistent, pretend to be angry with those who
say, ' Once He was not' This is ridiculous
also ; for they who give Him no being at all,
are angry with those who at least grant Him
to be in time. Thus these also confess what
they deny, in the act of censuring the others.
And again Eusebius and his fellows, confessing
a Son, deny that He is the Word by nature,
and would have the Son called Word notion-
ally; and the others confessing Him to be
Word, deny Him to be Son, and would have
the Word called Son notionally, equally void of
footing.
§§ 9, lo. Unless Father and Son are two in name only,
or as parts and so each imperfect, or two gods, they
are coessential, one in Godhead, and the Son from
the Father.
9. * I and the Father are One ^' You say that
the two things are one, or that the one has two
names, or again that the one is divided into two.
.■ Now if the one is divided into two, that which is
divided must need be a body, and neither part
perfect, for each is a part and not a whole.
But if again the one have two names, this is the
expedient of Sabellius, who said that Son and
3 Phil. ii. 9. 4 John xvii. 7, 8.
5 Euseb. c. Mdrcell. pp. 6, 32, 49, &c. &c. ' John x. 30.
Father were the same, and did away with
either, the Father when there is a Son,
and the Son when there is a Father. But
if the two are one, then of necessity they
are two, but one according to the God-
head, and according to the Son's coessentiality
with the Father, and the Word's being from the
Father Himself ; so that there are two, be-
cause there is Father, and Son, namely the
Word ; and one because one God. For if
not, He would have said, * I am the Father,'
or ' I and the Father am ; ' but, in fact,
in the ' I ' He signifies the Son, and in the 'And
the Father,' Him who begat Him ; and in the
'One' the one Godhead and His coessentiality ^
For the Same is not, as the Gentiles hold. Wise
and Wisdom, or the Same Father and Word ;
for it were unfit for Him to be His own
Father, but the divine teaching knows Father
and Son, and Wise and Wisdom, and God and
Word ; while it ever guards Him indivisible
and inseparable and indissoluble in all respects.
10. But if any one, on hearing that the
Father and the Son are two, misrepresent us as
preaching two Gods (for this is what some
feign to themselves, and forthwith mock,
saying, 'You hold two Gods'), we must
answer to such. If to acknowledge Father and
Son, is to hold two Gods, it instantly 3 follows
that to confess but one we must deny the
Son and Sabellianise. For if to speak of two
is to fall into Gentilism, therefore if we speak
of one, we must fall into Sabellianism. But
this is not so ; perish the thought ! but, as
when we say that Father and Son are two, we
still confess one God, so when we say that there
is one God, let us consider Father and Son
two, while they are one in the Godhead, and
in the Father's Word being indissoluble and
indivisible and inseparable from Him. And
let the fire and the radiance from it be a simili-
tude of man, which are two in being and in
appearance, but one in that its radiance is from
it indivisibly.
§§ II, 12. Marcellus and his disciples, like Arians, say
that the Word was, not indeed created, but issued, to
create us, as if the Divine silence were a state of
inaction, and when God spake by the Word, He
acted ; or that there was a going forth and return
of the Word ; a doctnne which implies change and
imperfection in Father and Son.
Ti. They fall into the same folly with the
Arians ; for Arians also say that He was created
for us, that He might create us, as if God
waited till our creation for His issue, as
the one party say, or His creation, as the
* Here again is the word 6;aoo«<noi'. Contrast the language of
Or&t. iii. when commefnting on the same text, in the same way ;
e.g. iv T]7 iStoTTjTt KOI oi/ceioT>)Tt T^? (f>i;(rc(d«, koX t^ TauroTrjTc T^9
Hias SeoTrjTo;, § 4. 3 Cf. Or. iii. 10, note 4.
DISCOURSE IV.
437
other. Arians then are more bountiful to us
than to the Son ; for they say, not we for His
sake, but He for ours, came to be ; that is, if
He was tlierefore created, and subsisted, that
God through Him might create us. And
these, as irrehgious or more so, give to God
less than to us. For we oftentimes, even when
silent, yet are active in thinking, so as to form
the results of our thoughts into images ; but
God they would have inactive when silent,
and when He speaks then to exert strength ;
if, that is, when silent He could not make,
and when speaking He began to create.
For it is just to ask them, whether the
Word, when He was in God, was perfect,
so as to be able to make. If on the one hand
He was imperfect, when in God, but by being
begotten became perfect ^, we are the cause of
His perfection, that is, if He has been begotten
for us ; for on our behalf He has received the
power of making. But if He was perfect in
God, so as to be able to make. His generation
is superfluous ; for He, even when in the Father,
could frame the world ; so that either He has
not been begotten, or He was begotten, not for
us, but because He is ever from the Father.
For His generation evidences, not that we were
created, but that He is from God ; for He was
even before our creation.
12. And the same presumption will be
proved against them concerning the Father;
for if, when silent, He could not make, of
necessity He has gained power by begetting,
that is, by speaking. And whence has He
gained it ? and wherefore ? If, when He had
the Word within Him, He could make, He
begets needlessly, being able to make even in
silence. Next, if the Word was in God
before He was begotten, then being begotten
He is without and external to Him. But if
so, how says He now, ' I in the Father and
the Father in Me^?' but if He is now in the
Father, then always was He in the Father, as
He is now, and needless is it to say, ' For us
was He begotten, and He reverts after we are
formed, that He may be as He was.' For He
was not anything which He is not now, nor is
He what He was not ; but He is as He ever
was, and in the same state and in the same
respects ; otherwise He will seem to be im-
perfect and alterable. For if, what He was,
that He shall be afterwards, as if now He were
not so, it is plain, He is not now what He was
and shall be. I mean, if He was before in
God, and afterwards shall be again, it follows
that now the Word is not in God. But the
Lord refutes such persons when He says, 'I in
the Father and the Father in Me;' for so is
• Di Svn. 24, n. 9 ; Or. i. 14, n. 7.
2 John xiv. 10.
He now as He ever was. But if so He now is,
as He was ever, it follows, not that at one
time He was begotten and not at another, nor
that once there was silence with God, and then
He spake, but there is ever a Father3, and
a Son who is His Word, not in name* alone
a Word, nor the Word in notion only a Son,
but existing coessentials with the Father, not
begotten for us, for we are brought into being
for Him. For, if He were begotten for us,
and in His begetting we were created, and in
His generation the creature consists, and then
He returns that He may be what He was
before, first, He that was begotten will be
again not begotten. For if His progression
be generation, His return will be the close^ of
that generation, for when He has come to be in
God, God will be silent again. But if He
shall be silent, there will be what there was
when He was silent, stillness and not creation,
for the creation will cease to be. For, as
on the Word's outgoing, the creation came to
be, and existed, so on the Word's retiring, the
creation will not exist. What use then for it
to come into being, if it is to cease ? or why did
God speak, that then He should be silent?
and why did He issue One whom He recalls ?
and why did He beget One whose generation
He willed to cease ? Again it is uncertain what
He shall be. For either He will ever be silent,
or He will again beget, and will devise a different
creation (for He will not make the same, else
that which was made would have remained,
but another) ; and in due course He will bring
that also to a close, and will devise another,
and so on without end?.
§§ 13, 14. Such a doctrine precludes all real distinctions
of personality in the Divine Nature. Illustration of
the Scripture doctrine from 2 Cor. vi. 11, &c.
13. This perhaps he' borrowed from the
Stoics, who maintain that their God contracts
and again expands with the creation, and then
rests without end. For what is dilated is
first straitened ; and what is expanded is at first
contracted ; and it is what it was, and does
but undergo an affection. If then the Monad
being dilated became a Triad, and the Monad
was the Father'^, and the Triad is Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, first the Monad being di-
lated, underwent an affection and became
what it was not ; for it was dilated, whereas it
had not been dilate. Next, if the Monad itself
was dilated into a Triad, and that. Father and
Son and Holy Ghost, then Father and Son
and Spirit prove the same, as Sabellius held,
unless the Monad which he speaks of is some-
3 i. 21, n. I. 4 ii. ig, n. 3.
6 iravKa. cf. ii. 34, 35.
I ue. Maicellus, cf. §§ 14, 2
S ofioovcnos, 9, n. a
7 eis aTretpoi', ii. 68.
:S, &c " Cf. § 25.
438
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
thing besides the Father, and then he ought
not to speak of dilatation, since the Monad was
to make Three, so that there was a Monad,
and then Fariier, Son, and Spirit. For if the
Monad were dilated, and expanded itself, it
must itself be that which was expanded. And
a Triad when dilated is no longer a Monad,
and when a Monad it is not yet a Triad, And
so, He that was Father was not yet Son and
Spirit ; but, when become These, is no longer
only Father. And a man who thus should
lie, must ascribe a body to God, and repre-
sent Him as passible ; for what is dilatation,
but an affection of that which is dilated ? or
what the dilated, but what before was not
so, but was strait indeed; for it is the same,
in time only differing from itself.
14. And this the divine Apostle knows, when
he writes to the Corinthians, 'Be ye not strait-
ened in us, but be ye yourselves dilated,
O Corinthians^;' for he advises identical
persons to change from straitness to dilata-
tion. And as, supposing the Corinthians being
straitened were in turn dilated, they had not
been others, but still Corinthians, so if the
Father was dilated into a Triad, the Triad
again is the Father alone. And he says again
the same thing, ' Our heart is dilateds ; ' and
Noah says, 'May God dilate for Japheth*,' for
the same heart and the same Japheth is in the
dilatation. If then the Monad dilated, it would
dilate for others ; but if it dilated for itself, then
it would be that which was dilated ; and what is
that but the Son and Holy Spirit ? And it is well
to ask him, when thus speaking, what was the
action s of this dilatation ? or, in very truth,
wherefore at all it took place ? for what does
not remain the same, but is in course of time
dilated, must necessarily have a cause of dila-
tation. If then it was in order that Word and
Spirit should be with Him, it is beside the
purpose to say, 'First Monad, and then dila-
ted ; ' for Word and Spirit were not after-
wards, but ever, or God would be wordless^,
as the Arians hold. So that if Word and
Spirit were ever, ever was it dilated, and not
at first a Monad ; but if it were dilated after-
wards, then afterwards is there a Word. But
if for the Incarnation it was dilated, and then
became a Triad, then before the Incarnation
there was not yet a Triad. And it will seem
even that the Father became flesh, if, that
is, He be the Monad, and was dilated in
the Man ; and thus perhaps there will only be
a Monad, and flesh, and thirdly Spirit ; if,
that is, He was Himself dilated; and there
will be in name only a Triad, It is absurd
• 3 Cor. vi. 12, 13. 3 lb. vi. 11. 4 Gen. ix. 27, LXX.
5 ivipyeia [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) c] * Or. i. 19.
too to say that it was dilated for creating ; for
it were possible for it, remaining a Monad, to
make all; for the Monad did not need dilatation,
nor was wanting in power before being dilated ;
it is absurd surely and impious, to think or
speak thus in the case of God. Another
absurdity too will follow. For if it was
dilated for the sake of the creation, and while
it was a Monad the creation was not, but
upon the Consummation it will be again
a Monad after dilatation, then the creation too
will come to nought. For as for the sake
of creating it was dilated, so, the dilatation
ceasing, the creation will cease also.
§§ 15 — 24. Since the Word is from God, He must be
Son. Since the Son is from everlasting, He must be
the Word ; else either He is superior to the Word, or
the Word is the Father. Texts of the New Testament
which state the unity of the Son with the Father ;
therefore the Son is the Word. Three hypotheses
refuted — i. That the Man is the Son ; 2. That the
Word and Man together are the Son ; 3. That
the Word became Son on His incarnation. Texts
of the Old Testament which speak of the Son.
If they are merely prophetical, then those concern-
ing the Word may be such also.
15. Such absurdities will be the consequence
of saying that the Monad is dilated into a
Triad. But since those who say so venture
to separate Word and Son, and to say that
the Word is one and the Son another, and
that first was the Word and then the Son,
come let us consider this doctrine also. Now
their presumption takes various forms ; for
some say that the man whom the Saviour
assumed is the Son ^ ; and others both that
the man and the Word then became Son,
when they were united ^ And others say that
the Word Himself then became Son when He
became man ? ; for from being Word, they
say, He has become Son, not being Son before,
but only Word. Now both are Stoic * doctrines,
whether to say that God was dilated or to deny
the Son, but especially is it absurd to name
the Word, yet deny Him to be Son. For if
the Word be not from God, reasonably might
they deny Him to be Son ; but if He is from
God, how see they not that what exists from
anything is son of him from whom it is?
Next, if God is Father of the Word, why is
not the Word Son of His own Father? for one
is and is called father, whose is the son ; and
one is and is called son of another, whose is the
father. If then God is not Father of Christ,
neither is the Word Son ; but if God be
Father, then reasonably also the Word is Son.
But if afterwards there is Father, and first God,
this is an Arian thought *». Next, it is absurd
« Via. § 20. a Vid. § 21. 3 Vid. § 22 fin.
4 Cf. Ritt. and Prell. (Ed. 5) § 398 (?)• *» IS 8, 13.
DISCOURSE IV.
439
that God should change; for that belongs
to bodies; but if they argue that in the
instance of creation He became afterwards
a Maker, let them know that the change is
in the things s which afterwards came to be,
and not in God.
1 6. If then the Son too were a work, well
might God begin to be a Father towards Him
as others; but if the Son is not a work,
then ever was the Father and ever the Son ^
But if the Son was ever, He must be the
Word ; for if the Word be not Son, and
this is what a man" waxes bold to say,
either he holds that Word to be Father or the
Son superior to the Word. For the Son being
*in the bosom of the Father 2,' of necessity
•either the Word is not before the Son (for
nothing is before Him who is in the Father),
or if the Word be other than the Son, the
Word must be the Father in whom is the Son.
But if the Word is not Father but Word, the
Word must be external to the Father, since it
is the Son who is 'in the bosom of the Father.'
For not both the Word and the Son are in the
bosom, but one must be, and He the Son,
who is Only-begotten. And it follows for
another reason, if the Word is one, and the
Son another, that the Son is superior to the
Word ; for ' no one knoweth the Father save
the Son 3/ not the Word. Either then the
Word does not know, or if He knows, it is not
true that ' no one knows.' And the same of
* He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,'
and ' I and the Father are One,' for this is
uttered by the Son, not the Word, as they would
have it, as is plain from the Gospel ; for
according to John when the Lord said, ' I and
the Father are One,' the Jews took up stones
to stone Him. ' Jesus ■* answered them, Many
good works have I shewed you from My
Father, for which of those vvorks do ye stone
Me ? The Jews answered Him, saying, For a
good work we stone Thee not, but for blas-
phemy, and because that Thou, being a man,
makest Thyself God. Jesus answered them.
Is it not written in your law, I said. Ye are
gods ? If he called them gods unto whom
the Word of God came, and the Scripture
cannot be broken, say ye of Him, whom the
Father hath sanctified and sent into the world,
Thou hlasphemest, because I said, I am the
Son of God? If I do not the works of My
Father, beheve Me not. But if I do, though
ye believe not Me, believe the works, that ye
may know and believe that the Father is in
Me, and I in the Father.' And yet, as far as
the surface of the words intimated, He said
2 Jahn i. i8.
S Ct L 29.
3 Matt. xi. 27.
I Or. i.
14, n. 4.
4 John X. 32 — 38.
neither ' I am God,' nor ' I am Son of God,'
but ' I and the Father are One.'
17. The Jews then, when they heard 'One,'
thought like Sabellius that He said that He was
the Father, but our Saviour shews their sin by
this argument : 'Though I had said "God," you
should have remembered what is written, "I
said. Ye are gods ; " ' then to clear up ' I and
the Father are One,' He has explained the
Son's oneness with the Father in the words,
' Because I said, I am the Son of God.' For if
He did not say it in words, still He has
referred the sense of ' are One ' to the Son.
For nothing is one with the Father, but what is
from Him. What is that which is from Him
but the Son ? And therefore He adds, ' that ye
may know that I am in the Father, and the
Father in Me.' For, when expounding the
' One,' He said that the union and the insepa-
rability lay, not in This being That, with which
It was One, but in His being in the Father and
the Father in the Son. For thus He over-
throws both Sabelhus, in saying, ' I am ' not,
"the Father," but, 'the Son of God;' and
Arius, in saying, ' are One.' If then the Son
and the Word are not the same, it is not that
the Word is one with the Father, but the Son ;
nor he that hath seen the Word 'hath seen the
Father,' but ' he that hath seen ' the Son. And
from this it follows, either that the Son is
greater than the Word, or the Word has
nothing beyond the Son. For what can be
greater or more perfect than ' One,' and ' I in
the Father and the Father in Me,' and ' He
that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father?'
for these utterances also belong to the
Son. And hence the same John says, 'He
that hath seen Me, hath seen Him that sent
Me,' and, ' He that receiveth Me, receiveth
Him that sent Me ; ' and, ' I am come
a light into the world, that whosoever be-
lieveth in Me, should not abide in dark-
ness. And, if any one hear My words and
observe them not, I judge him not ; for I cam.e
not to judge the world, but to save the world.
The word which he shall hear, the same shall
judge him in the last day, because I go unto
the Father s.' The preaching. He says, judges
him who has not observed the command-
ment; ' for if,' He says, 'I had not come and
spoken unto them, they had not had sin ; but
now they shall have no cloke ^,' He says, having
heard My words, through which those who
observe them shall reap salvation.
18. Perhaps they will have so little shame as
to say, that this utterance belongs not to the Son
but to the Word ; but from what preceded it
appeared plainly that the speaker was the Son.
5 John xii. 45 ; Matt. x. 40; John xii. 46 — 48. * John xv.aa.
440
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
For He who here says, ' I came not to judge
the world but to save^,' is shewn to be no other
than the Only-begotten Son of God, by the
same John's saying before % ' For God so loved
the world that He gave His Only-begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth on Him should not
perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent
not His Son into the world to condemn the
world, but that the world through Him might
be saved. He that believeth on Him is not
condemned, but he that beheveth not is con-
demned already, because he hath not believed
in the Name of the Only-begotten Son of God.
And this is the condenmation, that light is come
into the world, and men loved darkness rather
than light, because their deeds are evil 3.' If
He who says, ' For I came not to judge the
world, but that I might save it,' is the Same as
says, ' He that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent
Me 4,' and if He who came to save the world
and not judge it is the Only-begotten Son of
God, it is plain that it is the same Son who
says, ' He that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent
Me.' For He who said, ' He that beUeveth on
Me,' and, ' If any one hear My words, I judge
him not,' is the Son Himself, of whom Scripture
says, ' He that beUeveth on Him is not con-
demned, but He that beheveth not is condem-
ned already, because He hath not believed in
the Name of the Only-begotten Son of God.'
And again : ' And this is the condemnation ' of
him who believeth not on the Son, ' that light
hath come into the world,' and they believed
not in Him, that is, in the Son ; for He must be
' the Light which lighteth every man that
Cometh into the world 5.' And as long as He
was upon earth according to the Incarnation,
He was Light in the world, as He said Himself,
' While ye have light, believe in the light, that
ye may be the children of light ; ' for ' I,' says
He, ' am come a light into the world ^.'
19. This then being shewn, it follows that
the Word is the Son. But if the Son is the
Light, which has come into the world, beyond
all dispute the world was made by the Son.
For in the beginning of the Gospel, the Evan-
gelist, speaking of John the Baptist, says, ' He
was not that Light, but that he might bear
witness concerning that Lights' For Christ
Himself was, as we have said before, the True
Light that lighteth every man that cometh into
the world. For if ' He was in the world, and
the world was made by Him ^,' of necessity He
is the Word of God, concerning whom also the
Evangelist witnesses that all things were made
by Him. For either they will be compelled to
speak of two worlds, that the one may have
I John xji. 47. 2 lb. iii. i6 — 19. 3 lb. iii. 18, 19.
4 lb. xii. 45. 5 lb. i, 9. lb. xii. 36, 46. ' lb. i. 8.
2 lb. i. 10.
come into being by the Son and the other by
the Word, or, if the world is one and the crea-
tion one, it follows that Son and Word are one
and the same before all creation, for by Him it
came into being. Therefore if as by the Word,
so by the Son also all things came to be, it will
not be contradictory, but even identical to say,
for instance, ' In the beginning was the Word,'
or, ' In the beginning was the Son.' But if be-
cause John did not say, * In the beginning was
the Son,' they shall maintain that the attributes
of the Word do not suit with the Son, it at once
follows that the attributes of the Son do not
suit with the Word. But it was shewn that to
the Son belongs, 'I and the Father are
One,' and that it is He 'Who is in the
bosom of the Father,' and, ' He that seeth
Me, seeth Him that sent Me 3;' and that
'the world was brought into being by Him,'
is common to the Word and the Son ; so that
from this the Son is shewn to be before the
world : for of necessity the Framer is before
the things brought into being. And what
is said to Philip must belong, according to
them, not to the Word, but to the Son.
For, 'Jesus said,' says Scripture, 'Have I
been so long time with you, and yet thou hast
not known Me, Philip ? He that hath seen Me,
hath seen the Father. And how sayest thou
then, Shew us the Father ? Believest thou not,
that I am in the Father and the Father in Me ?
the words that I speak unto you, I speak not of
Myself, but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He
doeth the works. Believe Me that I am in the
Father and the Father in Me, or else, beUeve
Me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I
say unto you, he that believeth on Me, the
works that I do shall he do also, and greater
works than these shall he do, because I go unto
the Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in My
Name, that will I do, that the Father may be
glorified in the Son I' Therefore if the Father
be glorified in the Son, the Son must be He who
said, ' I in the Father and the Father in Me;'
and He who said, ' He that hath seen Me, hath
seen the Father ; ' for He, the same who thus
spoke, shews Himself to be the Son, by adding,
' that the Father may be glorified in the Son,'
20. If then they say that tlie Man whom the
Word wore, and not the Word, is the Son of
God the Only-begotten, the Man must be by
consequence He who is in the Father, in whom
also the Father is ; and the Man must be He
who is One with the Father, and who is in the
bosom of the Father, and the True Light. And
they will be compelled to say that through the
Man Himself the world came into being, and
that the Man was He who came not to judge the
3 John X. 3c ; i. 18 ; xii. 45.
4 lb.
XIV. r)— tj.
DISCOURSE IV.
441
world but to save it ; and that He it was who
was in being before Abraham came to be. For,
says Scripture, Jesus said to them, ' Verily,
verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I
am s.' And is it not absurd to say, as they
do, that one who came of the seed of x\braham
after two and forty generations ^, should exist
before Abraham came to be ? is it not absurd,
if the flesh, which the Word bore, itself is
the Son, to say that the flesh from Mary is that
by which the world was made ? and how will
they retain ' He was in the world ? ' for the
Evangehst, by way of signifying the Son's ante-
cedence to the birth according to the flesh, goes
on to say, ' He was in the world.' And how,
if not the Word but the Man is the Son, can He
save the world, being Himself one of the world ?
And if this does not shame them, where shall
be the Word, the Man being in the Father?
And where will the Word stand to the Father, the
Man and the Father being One? But if the
Man be Only-begotten, what will be the place
of the Word ? Either one must say that He
comes second, or, if He be above the Only-
begotten, He must be the Father Himself For
as the Father is One, so also the Only-begotten
from Him is One ; and what has the Word
above the Man, if the Word is not the Son ?
For, while Scripture says that through the Son
and the Word the world was brought to be, and
it is common to the Word and to the Son to
frame the world, yet Scripture proceeds to
place the sight of the Father, not in the Word
but in the Son, and to attribute the saving of
the world, not to the Word, but to the Only-
begotten Son. For, saitli it, Jesus said, ' Have
I been so long while with you, and yet hast
thou not known Me, Philip ? He that hath seen
Me, hath seen the Father.' Nor does Scripture
say that the Word knows the Father, but the
Son ; and that not the Word sees the Father,
but the Only-begotten Son who is in the bosom
of the Father.
2 1. And what more does the Word contribute
to our salvation than the Son, if, as they hold,
the Son is one, and the Word another ? for the
command is that we should believe, not in the
Word, but in the Son. For John says, ' He
that beUeveth on the Son, hath everlasting
life ; but he that beheveth not the Son, shall
not see hfe ^' And Holy Baptism, in which
the substance of the whole faith is lodged, is
administered not in the Word, but in Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost. If then, as they hold,
the Word is one and the Son another, and the
Word is not the Son, Baptism has no connec-
tion with the Word. How then are they able
to hold that the Word is with the Father, when
He is not with Him in the giving of Baptism ?
But perhaps they will say, that in the Father's
Name the Word is included? Wherefore then
not the Spirit also ? or is the Spirit external to
the Father ? and the Man indeed (if the Word
is not Son) is named after the Father, but the
Spirit after the Man ? and then the Monad,
instead of dilating into a Triad, dilates accord-
ing to them into a Tetrad, Father, Word, Son,
and Holy Ghost. Being brought to shame on
this ground, they have recourse to another, and
say that not the Man by Himself whom the Lord
bore, but both together, the Word and the
Man, are the vSon ; for both joined together are
named Son, as they say. Which then is cause
of which ? and which has made which a Son ?
or, to speak more clearly, is the Word a Son
because of the flesh ? or is the flesh called Son
because of the VVord ? or is neither the cause,
but the concurrence of the two? If then the
Word be a Son because of the flesh, of neces-
sity the flesh is Son, and all those absurd-
ities follow which have been already drawn
from saying that the Man is Son. But if the
flesh is called Son because of the Word, then
even before the flesh the Word certainly, being
such, was Son. For how could a being make
other sons, not being himself a son, especially
when there was a father^ ? If then He makes
sons for Himself, then is He Himself Father ;
but if for the Father, then must He be Son, or
rather that Son, by reason of Whom the rest are
made sons.
22. For if, while He is not Son, we are sons,
God is our Father and not His. How then
does He appropriate the name instead, saying,
' My Father,' and ' I from the Father 3 ? ' for if
He be common Father of all. He is not His
Father only, nor did He alone come out from
the Father. But he says, that He is some-
times called our Father also, because He has
Himself become partaker in our flesh. For on
this account the Word has become flesh, that,
since the Word is Son, therefore, because of
the Son dwelling in usl He may be called
our Father also ; for ' He sent forth,' says
Scripture, 'the Spirit of His Son into our
hearts, crying, Abba, Fathers.' Therefore the
Son in us, calling upon His own Father, causes
Him to be named our Father also. Surely
in whose hearts the Son is not, of them neither
can God be called Father. But if because of
the Word the Man is called Son, it follows
necessarily, since the ancients^ are called sons
even before the Incarnation, that the Word
is Son even before His sojourn among us;
for 'I begat sous,' saith Scripture; and in
5 John viii. 58.
6 Vid. Matt. i. 17.
' John iii. 36.
» Cf. iii. II, n. I. 3 John v. 17 ; xvi. 28. ♦ Or. ii. 6d.
5. 5 Gal. iv. 6. * Below, § 29.
442
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
the time of Noah, 'When the sons of
God saw,' and in the Song, * Is not He thy
Father? ? ' Therefore there was also that True
Son, for whose sake they too were sons. But
if, as they say again, neither of the two is Son,
but it depends on the concurrence of the two,
it follows that neither is Son ; I say, neither
the Word nor the Man, but some cause, on
account of which they were united; and ac-
cordingly that cause which makes the Son
will precede the uniting. Therefore in this
way also the Son was before the flesh. When
this then is urged, they will take refuge in
another pretext, saying, neither that the Man
is Son, nor both together, but that the Word
was Word indeed simply in the beginning, but
when He became Man, then He was named ^^
Son ; for before His appearing He was not
Son but Word only ; and as the ' Word be
came flesh,' not being flesh before, so the
Word became Son, not being Son before.
Such are their idle words ; but they admit
of an obvious refutation.
23. For if simply, when made Man, He
has become Son, the becoming Man is the cause.
And if the Man is cause of His being Son,
or both together, then the same absurdities
result. Next, if He is first Word and then
Son, it will appear that He knew the Father
afterwards, not before ; for not as being Word
does He know Him, but as Son. For ' No
one knoweth the Father but the Son.' And
this too will result, that He has come afterwards
to be ' in the bosom of the Father',' and after-
wards He and the Father have become One ; and
afterwards is, ' He that hath seen Me, hath seen
the Father^.' For all these things are said of
the Son. Hence they will be forced to say.
The Word was nothing but a name. For
neither is it He who is in us with the Father,
nor whoso has seen the Word, hath seen the
Father, nor was the Father known to any one
at all, for through the Son is the Father known
(for so it is written, ' And he to whomsoever
the Son will reveal Him '), and, the Word not
being yet Son, not yet did any know the
Father. How then was He seen by Moses,
how by the fathers ? for He says Himself in
the Kingdoms, 'Was I not plainly revealed
to the house of thy fathers ? ' But if God was
revealed, there must have been a Son to reveal,
as He says Himself, ' And he to whomsoever
the Son will reveal Him.' It is irreligious then
and foolish to say that the Word is one and
the Son another, and whence they gained such
an idea it were well to ask them. They
answer. Because no mention is made in the
7 Is. i. 2, LXX. ; Gen. vi. 2 ; Deut. xxxii. 6.
7» Or. ii. 19, n. 3. i Matt. xi. 27 ; John i. 18.
" John xiv. 9. 3 1 Sam. ii. 27, LXX.
Old Testament of the Son, but of the Word ;
and for this reason they are positive in their
opinion that the Son came later than the
Word, because not in the Old, but in the
New only, is He spoken of. This is what
they irreligiously say ; for first to separate
between the Testaments, so that the one does
not hold with the other, is the device of Mani-
chees and Jews, the one of whom oppose
the Old, and the other the New^. Next, on
their shewing, if what is contained in the
Old is of older date, and what in the
New of later, and times depend upon the
writing, it follows that ' I and the Father are
One,' and 'Only-begotten,' and 'He that hath
seen Me hath seen the Fathers,' are later, for
these testimonies are adduced not from the Old
but from the New.
24. But it is not so ; for in truth much
is said in the Old also about the Son, as
in the second Psalm, 'Thou art My Son,
this day have I begotten Thee^;' and in
the ninth the title% Unto the ' end concerning
the hidden things of the Son, a Psalm of
David ; ' and in the forty-fourth, ' Unto the end,
concerning the things that shall be changed to
the Sons of Korah for understanding, a song
about the Well-beloved ; ' and in Isaiah, ' I
will sing to my Well-beloved a song of my
Well-beloved touching my vineyard. My Well-
beloved hath a vineyards ; ' Who is this 'Well-
beloved ' but the Only-begotten Son ? as also
in the hundred and ninth, 'From the womb
I begat Thee before the morning starV
concerning which I shall speak afterwards ;
and in the Proverbs, ' Before the hills He
begat me ; ' and in Daniel, ' And the form of
the Fourth is like the Son of Gods • ' and many
others. If then from the Old be ancientness,
ancient must be the Son, who is clearly de-
scribed in the Old Testament in many places.
' Yes,' they say, ' so it is, but it must be taken
prophetically.' Therefore also the Word must
be said to be spoken of prophetically ; for this
is not to be taken one way, that another.
For if ' Thou art My Son' refer to the future,
so does ' By the Word of the Lord were
the heavens estabhshed ; ' for it is not said
' were brought to be,' nor ' He made.' But
that ' established ' refers to the future, it states
elsewhere : ' The Lord reigned s*,' followed by
' He so established the earth that it can never
be moved.' And if the words in the forty-
fourth Psalm ' for My Well-beloved ' refer to
the future, so does what follows upon them,
' My heart uttered a good Word.' And if
' From the womb ' relates to a man, therefore
4 Cf. i. S3, n. 7 ; iii. 35, n. 5. 5 John x. 30 ; i. 18 ; xiv. 9.
I Ps. ii. 7. * lb. ix. title xiv. title. 3 Is. v. i.
4 Ps. ex. 3, LXX. 5 Prov. viii. 23, LXX. ; Dan. iii. 25.
S» Cf. Exf. in Ps. xciL
DISCOURSE IV.
443
also * From the heart' For if the womb is
human, so is the heart corporeal. But if what
is from the heart is eternal, then what is 'From
the womb ' is eternal. And if the ' Only-be-
gotten ' is ' in the bosom,' therefore the ' Well-
beloved 'is 'in the bosom.' For ' Only-be-
gotten ' and ' Well-beloved ' are the same, as
in the words 'This is My Well-beloved Son^.'
For not as wishing to signify His love towards
Him did He say ' Well-beloved,' as if it might
appear that He hated others, but He made
plain thereby His being Only-begotten, that
He might shew that He alone was from Him.
And hence the Word, with a view of conveying
to Abraham the idea of ' Only-begotten,' says,
* Offer thy son thy well-beloved ^ ; ' but it is
plain to any one that Isaac was the only son
from Sara. The Word then is Son, not lately
come to be, or named Son, but always Son. For
if not Son, neither is He Word ; and if not
Word, neither is He Son. For that which
is from the father is a son ; and what is from
the Father, but that Word that went forth
from the heart, and was born from the womb?
for the Father is not Word, nor the Word
Father, but the one is Father, and the other
Son ; and one begets, and the other is be-
gotten.
§ 25. Marcellian illustration from i Cor. xii. 4, refuted.
25. Arius then raves in saying that the Son
is from nothing, and that once He was not,
while Sabellius also raves in saying that the
Father is Son, and again, the Son Father', in
subsistence =" One, in name Two ; and he 3 raves
also in using as an example the grace of the
Spirit. For he says, 'As there are "diversities
of gifts, but the same Spirit," so also the Father
is the same ">, but is dilated into Son and Spirit.'
Now this is full of absurdity ; for if as with
the Spirit, so it is with God, the Father will be
Word and Holy Spirit, to one becoming Father,
to another Son, to another Spirit, accommo-
dating himself to the need of each, and in
name indeed Son and Spirit, but in reality
Father only ; having a beginning in that He
becomes a Son, and then ceasing to be called
Father, and made man in name, but in truth
not even coming among us; and untrue in
saying ' I and the Father,' but in reality being
Himself the Father, and the other absurd-
ities which result in the instance of Sabel-
Hus. And the name of the Son and the Spirit
will necessarily cease, when the need has been
supplied ; and what happens will altogether be
but make-belief, because it has been dis-
6 Ps. xxxiii. 6 ; xciii. i : xlv. i ; Matt.
S 13. * virocTTacrci, iii. 65, n. 9.
4 (i Cor. xii. 4.) So Marcellu?, § 13.
111. 17.
7 Gen. xxii. 2.
3 i.e. Marcellus.
played, not in truth, but in name. And the
Name of Son ceasing, as they hold, then the
grace of Baptism will cease too ; for it was
given in the Son s. Nay, what will follow but
the annihilation of the creation? for if the
Word came forth that we might be created ^,
and when He was come forth, we were, it is
plain that when He retires into the Father, as %
they say, we shall be no longer. For He will /
be as He was ; so also we shall not be, as then
we were not; for when He is no more gone
forth, there will no more be a creation. This
then is absurd.
§§ 26 — 36. That the Son is the Co-existing Word,
argued from the New Testament. Texts from the
Old Testament continued ; especially Ps. ex. 3.
Besides, the Word in Old Testament may be Son
in New, as Spirit in Old Testament is Paraclete
in New. Objection from Acts x. 36 ; answered by
parallels, such as I Cor. i. 5. Lev. ix. 7. &c. Neces-
sity of the Word's taking flesh, viz. to sanctify, yet
without destroying, the flesh.
26. But that the Son has no beginning of
being, but before He was made man was ever
with the Father, John makes clear in his first
Epistle, writing thus : ' That which was from
the beginning, which we have heard, which we
have seen with our eyes, which we have looked
upon, and our hands have handled of the
Word of Life; and the Life was manifested,
and we have seen it ; and we bear witness and
declare unto you that Eternal Life, which was
with the Father, and was manifested unto us '.'
While he says here that 'the Life,' not 'be-
came,' but 'was with the Father,' in the end of
his Epistle he says the Son is the Life, writing,
' And we are in Him that is True, even in His
Son, Jesus Christ ; this is the True God and
Eternal Life 2.' But if the Son is the Life,
and the Life was with the Father, and if the
Son was with the Father, and the same Evan-
gelist says, ' And the Word was with God 3,'
the Son must be the Word, which is ever with
the Father. And as the ' Son ' is ' Word,' so
' God ' must be ' the Father.' Moreover, the
Son, according to John, is not merely ' God '
but ' True God ; ' for according to the same
Evangelist, ' And the Word was God ; ' and
the Son said, ' I am the Life 1' Therefore the
Son is the Word and Life which is with the
Father. And again, what is said in the same
John, ' The Only-begotten Son which is in the
bosom of the Father s,' shews that the Son was
ever. For whom John calls Son, Him David
mentions in the Psalm as God's Hand ^, saying,
'Why stretchest Thou not forth Thy Right Hand
outofThybosom7?' Therefore iftheHandisin
S §21.
s lb. V. 20.
s lb. i. 18.
ii. 24, n. 6 ; iv. 11, n. 4.
3 John i. I.
6 ii. 31, n. 4.
I I John i. 1, 2.
4 lb. xiv. 6.
7 Ps. Ixxiv. II, LXX.
444
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
the bosom, and the Son in the bosom, the Son
will be the Hand, and the Hand will be the
Son, through whom the Father made all
things ; for it is written, ' Thy Hand made
all these things,' and 'He led out His people
Avith His Hand^;' therefore through the Son.
And if ' this is the changing of the Right
Hand of the Most Highest,' and again, ' Unto
the end, concerning the things that shall be
changed, a song for My Well-beloved 9;' the
Well-beloved then is the Hand that was
changed ; concerning whom the Divine Voice
also says, 'This is My Beloved Son.' This
' My Hand ' then is equivalent to ' This My
Son.'
27. But since there are ill-instructed men
who, while resisting the doctrine of a Son,
think little of the words, ' From the womb
before the morning star I begat Thee ^ ;' as if
this referred to His relation to Mary, alleging
that He was born of Mary ' before the morning
star,' for that to say ' womb ' could not refer to
His relation towards God, we must say a few
words here. If then, because the 'womb' is
human, therefore it is foreign to God, plainly
'heart' too has a human meaning % for that
which has heart has womb also. Since then
both are human, we must deny both, or seek
to explain both. Now as a word is from the
heart, so is an offspring from the womb ; and
as when the heart of God is spoken of, we
do not conceive of it as human, so if Scripture
says ' from the womb,' we must not take it in
a corporeal sense. For it is usual with divine
Scripture to speak and signify in the way of
man what is above man. Thus speaking of
the creation it says, ' Thy hands made me
and fashioned me,' and, ' Thy hand made
all these things,' and, ' He commanded
and they were created 3.' Suitable then is its
language about everything; attributing to the
Son ' propriety ' and ' genuineness,' and to the
creation ' the beginning of being.' For the
one God makes and creates ; but Him He
begets from Himself, Word or Wisdom.
Now 'womb' and 'heart' plainly declare the
proper and the genuine ; for we too have this
from the womb ; but our works we make by
the hand.
28. What means then, say they, ' Before the
morning star? ' I would answer, that if ' Before
the morning star ' shews that His birth from
Mary was wonderful, many others besides have
been born before the rising of the star. What
then is said so wonderful in His instance, that
He should record it as some choice preroga-
tive 4, when it is common to many ? Next, to
8 Vid. Is. Ixvi. 2 ; Deut. vii. 8. 9 Ps. Ixxvii. lo, LXX. ;
xlv. title. ' lb. ex. 3, LXX. = § 24. 3 Ps. cxix. 73 ;
cxlviii. 5. 4 elatpeVou, ii, 19, n. 6.
beget differs from bringing forth ; for begetting
involves the primary foundation, but to bring
forth is nothing else than the production of what
exists. If then the term belongs to the body,
let it be observed that He did not then receive
a beginning of coming to be when he was evan-
gelized to the shepherds by night, but when tlie
Angel spoke to the Virgin. And that was not
night, for this is not said ; on the contrary, it
was night when He issued from the womb.
This difference Scripture makes, and says on
the one hand that He was begotten before the
morning star, and on the other speaks of His
proceeding from the womb, as in the twenty-
first Psalm, ' Thou art he that drew Me from the
wombs.' Besides, He did not say, 'before
the rising of the morning star,' but simply ' be-
fore the morning star.' If then the phrase
must be taken of the body, then either the body
must be before Adam, for the stars were before
Adam, or we have to investigate the sense of
the letter. And this John enables us to do, who
says in the Apocalypse, ' I am Alpha and
Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and
the end. Blessed are they who make broad
their robes, that they may have right to the
tree of life, and may enter in through the gates
into the city. For without are dogs, and
sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers,
and idolaters, and whosoever maketh and
loveth a he. I Jesus have sent My Angel, to
testify these things in the Churches. I am the
Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright
and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the
Bride say, Come ; and let him that heareth say,
Come ; and let him that is athirst, Come ; and
whosoever will, let him take of the water of life
freely ^.' If then ' the Offspring of David ' be
the ' Bright and Morning Star,' it is plain that
the flesh of the Saviour is called ' the Morning
Star,' which the Offspring from God preceded ;
so that the sense of the Psalm is this, ' I have
begotten Thee from Myself before Thy appear-
ance in the flesh ;' for ' before the Morning
Star ' is equivalent to ' before the Incarnation
of the Word.'
29. Thus in the Old also, statements are
plainly made concerning the Son ; at the
same time it is superfluous to argue the
point; for if what is not stated in the Old
is of later date, let them who are thus dis-
putatious, say where in the Old is mention
made of the Spirit, the Paraclete ? for of the
Holy Spirit there is mention, but nowhere of
the Paraclete. Is then the Holy Spirit one,
and the Paraclete another, and the Paraclete
the later, as not mentioned in the Old? but
far be it to say that the Spirit is later, or to
5 Ps. xxii. g.
6 Rev. xxii. 13 — 17.
DISCOURSE IV.
445
distinguish the Holy Ghost as one and the
Paraclete as another; for the Spirit is one and
the same, then and now hallowing and comfort-
ing those who are Mis recipients ; as one and
the same Word and Son led even then to
adoption of sons those who were worthy ^
For sons under the Old were made such
through no other than the Son. For unless
even before Mary there were a Son who was
of God, how is He before all, when they are
sons before Him ? and how also * First-born,' if
He comes second after many ? But neither is
the Paraclete second, for He was before all,
nor the Son later ; for ' in the beginning was the
Word ^.' And as the Spirit and Paraclete are
the same, so the Son and Word are the same ;
and as the Saviour says concerning the Spirit,
' But the Paraclete which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in My Name 3,'
speaking of One and Same, and not distinguish-
ing, so John describes similarly when he says,
' And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among
us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of one
Only-begottenfromtheFatherl' Forhere too he
does not distinguish but witnesses the identity.
And as the Paraclete is not one and the Holy
Ghost another, but one and the same, so Word
is not one, and Son another, but the Word is
Only-Begotten ; for He says not the glory of the
flesh itself, but of the Word. He then who
dares distinguish between Word and Son, let
him distinguish between Spirit and Paraclete ;
but if the Spirit cannot be distinguished, so
neither can the Word, being also Son and
Wisdom and Power. Moreover, the word
* Well-beloved ' even the Greeks who are skilful
in phrases know to be equivalent with ' Only-
begotten.' For Homer speaks thus of Telema-
chus, who was the only-begotten of Ulysses, in
the second book of the Odyssey :
O'er the wide earth, dear youth, why seek to run,
An only child, a well-beloved s son ?
He whom you mourn, divine Ulysses, fell
Far from his country, where the strangers dwell.
Therefore he who is the only son of his father
is called well-beloved.
30. Some of the followers of the Samosatene,
distinguishing the Word from the Son, pretend
that the Son is Christ, and the Word another;
and they ground this upon Peter's words
in the Acts, which he spoke well, but
they explain badly ^. It is this : ' The Word
He sent to the children of Israel, preaching
peace by Jesus Christ ; this is Lord of all ?.'
For they say that smce the Word spoke through
Christ, as in the instance of the Prophets, ' Thus
saith the Lord,' the prophet was one and the
Lord another. But to this it is parallel to
» Cf. i. 39, n. 4. 2 John i. i. _ 3 lb. xiv. 26.
4 lb. i. 14. 5 fiovvoi iiav dyamjTos, line 365.
6 Cf. ii. I, n. 13. 7 Acts x. 36.
oppose the words in the first to the Corinthians,
' waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who shall also confirm you unto the end
unblameable in the day of our Lord Jesus
Christ ^.' For as one Christ does not confirm
the day of another Christ, but He Himself con-
firms in His own day those who wait for Him,
so the Father sent the Word made flesh, that
being made man He might preach by means of
Himself And therefore he straightway adds,
'This is Lord of all;' but Lord of all is the
Word.
31. 'And Moses said unto Aaron, Go unto
the altar and offer thy sin-offering, and thy
burnt-offering, and make an atonement for thy-
self and for the people ; and offer the offering
of the people, and make an atonement for them,
as the Lord commanded Moses '.' See now
here, though Moses be one, Moses himself
speaks as if about another Moses, ' as the Lord
commanded Moses.' In like manner then, if
the blessed Peter speak of the Divine Word
also, as sent to the children of Israel by Jesus
Christ, it is not necessary to understand that
the Word is one and Christ another, but that
they were one and the same by reason of the
uniting which took place in His divine and
loving condescension and becoming man. And
even if He be considered in two ways^, still it is
without any division of the Word, as when the
inspired John says, 'And the Word became
flesh, and dwelt among us 3.' What then is said
well and rightly 4 by the blessed Peter, the fol-
lowers of the Samosatene, understanding badly
and wrongly, stand not in the truth. For Christ
is understood in both ways in Divine Scripture,
as when it says Christ ' God's power and God's
wisdom 5.' If then Peter says that the Word
was sent through Jesus Christ unto the children
of Israel, let him be understood to mean, that
the Word incarnate has appeared to the children
of Israel, so that it may correspond to ' And
the Word became flesh.' But if they under-
stand it otherwise, and, while confessing the
Word to be divine, as He is, separate from Him
the Man that He has taken, with which also we
believe that He is made one, saying that He
has been sent through Jesus Christ, they are,
without knowing it, contradicting themselves.
For those who in this place separate the divine
Word from the divine Incarnation, have, it
seems, a degraded notion of the doctrine of
His having become flesh, and entertain Gentile
thoughts, as they do, conceiving that the divine
Incarnation is an alteration of the Word. But
it is not so ; perish the thought.
32. For in the same way that John here
preaches that incomprehensible union, 'the
8 I Cor. i. 7, 8.
3 John 1. 14.
' Lev. ix. 7.
4 ii. 44, n. I.
' Cf. iii. 29, init.
S I Cor. i. 24.
40
FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS.
mortal being swallowed up of life %' nay, of Hira
who is Very Life (as the Lord said to Martha,
' I am the Life '^ '), so when the blessed Peter
says that through Jesus Christ the Word was
sent, he implies the divine union also. For
as when a man heard ' The Word became flesh,'
he would not think that the Word ceased to be,
which is absurd, as has been said before,
so also hearing of the Word which has been
united to the flesh, let him understand the
divine mystery one and simple. More clearly
however and indisputably than all reasoning
does what was said by the Archangel to the
Bearer of God herself, shew the oneness of
the Divine Word and Man. For he says, ' The
Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the
Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee :
therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be
born of thee, shall be called the Son of God 3.'
Irrationally then do the followers of the Samo-
satene separate the Word who is clearly declared
to be made one with the Man from Mary. He
is not therefore sent through that Man ; but He
rather in Him sent, saying, ' Go ye, teach all
nations 1'
33. And this is usual with Scripture s,
to express itself in inartificial and simple
phrases. For so also in Numbers we shall
find, Moses said to Raguel the Midianite, the
father-in-law of Moses ; for there was not one
Moses who spoke, and another whose father-in-
law was Raguel, but Moses was one. And if
in like manner the Word of God is called
Wisdom and Power and Right-Hand and Arm
and the like, and if in His love to man He has
become one with us, putting on our first-fruits
and blended with it, therefore the other titles
also have, as was natural, become the Word's
portions. For that John has said, that in the
beginning was the Word, and He with God and
Himself God, and all things through Him, and
without Him nothing made, shews clearly that
even man is the formation of God the Word.
If then after taking him, when enfeebled^, into
Himself, He renews him again through that
sure renewal unto endless permanence, and
therefore is made one with him in order to raise
him to a diviner lot, how can we possibly say
that the Word was sent through the Man who
was from Mary, and reckon Him, the Lord of
Apostles, with the other Apostles, I mean
prophets, who were sent by Him ? And how
can Christ be called a mere man ? on the con-
trary, being made one with the Word, He is
with reason called Christ and Son of God, the
prophet having long since loudly and clearly
ascribed the Father's subsistence to Him, and
» 2 Cor. V. 4. a John xi. 25. 3 Luke i. 35.
* Matt, xxviii. 19. 5 Of. ii. 53, n. 4.
* iradpwBduTa, cf. ii. 66, n. 7.
said, ' And I will send My Son Christ 7,' and in
the Jordan, ' This is My Well-beloved Son.'
For when He had fulfilled His promise. He
shewed, as was suitable, that He was He whom
He said He had sent.
34. Let us then consider Christ in both
ways, the divine Word made one in Mary
with Him which is from Mary. For in her
womb the Word fashioned for Himself His
house, as at the beginning He formed Adam
from the earth ; or rather more divinely, con-
cerning whom Solomon too says openly, know-
ing that the Word was also called Wis-
dom, 'Wisdom builded herself an house^;'
which the Apostle interprets when he says,
'Which house are we%' and elsewhere calls us
a temple, as far as it is fitting to God to
inhabit a temple, of which the image, made of
stones, He by Solomon commanded the an-
cient people to build ; whence, on the appear-
ance of the Truth, the image ceased. For
when the ruthless men wished to prove the
image to be the truth, and to destroy that true
habitation which we surely believe His union
with us to be. He threatened them not ; but
knowing that their crime was against them-
selves, He says to them, ' Destroy this Temple,
and in three days I will raise it up 3,' He, our
Saviour, surely shewing thereby that the things
about which men busy themselves, carry their
dissolution with them. For unless the Lord had
built the house, and kept the city, in vain did the
builders toil, and the keepers watch *. And so
the works of the Jews are undone, for they
were a shadow ; but the Church is firmly
established ; it is ' founded on the rock,' and
' the gates of hades shall not prevail against
its.' Theirs^ it was to say, 'Why dost Thou,
being a man, make Thyself God 7 ?' and their
disciple is the Samosatene ; whence to his
followers with reason does he teach his heresy.
But ' we did not so learn Christ, if so be
that we heard ' Him, and were taught from
Him, ' putting off the old man, which is
corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,' and
taking up ' tlie new, which after God is created
in rigliteousness and true holiness ^.' Let Christ
then in both ways be religiously considered.
35. But if Scripture often calls even the
body by the name of Christ, as in the blessed
Peter's words to Cornelius, when he teaches
him of ' Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed
with the Holy Ghost,' and again to the Jews,
' Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God
for you ^,' and again the blessed Paul to
the Athenians, ' By that Man, whom He
7 Vid. 2 Esdr. vii. 28, 29 ; Acts iii. so.
2 Heb. iii. 6. 3 John ii. 19.
S Vid. Matt. vii. 25 ; xvi. 18.
7 De Deer. 1 ; Or. i. 4, iii. 27 ; de Syn. 50.
I Acts X. 38 ; ii. 22.
I Prov. ix. I.
4 Vid. Ps. cxxvii. i.
* e/csiVui', John x. 33.
8 Eph. iv. 20 — 24.
DISCOURSE IV.
447
ordained, giving assurance to all men, in that
He raised Him from the dead^'' (for we
find the appointment and the mission often
synonymous with the anointing ; from which
any one who will may learn, that there is no
discordance in the words of the sacred writers,
but that they but give various names to the
union of God the Word with the Man from
Mary, sometimes as anointing, sometimes as
mission, sometimes as appointment), it follows
that what the blessed Peter says is rights,
and he proclaims in purity the Godhead of the
Only-begotten, without separating the subsist-
ence of God the Word from the Man from
Mary (perish the thought ! for how should he,
who had heard in so many ways, ' I and the
Father are one,' and ' He that hath seen Me,
hath seen the Father 4?)' In which Man, after
the. resurrection also, when the doors were shut,
we know of His coming to the whole band +"
of the Apostles, and dispersing all that was hard
to believe in it by His words, ' Handle Me and
see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye
see Me have s.' And He did not say, ' This,'
or ' this Man which I have taken to Me,' but
' Me.' Wherefore the Samosatene will gain no
allowance, being refuted by so many argu-
ments for the union of God the Word, nay by
God the Word Himself, who now brings the
news to all, and assures them by eating, and
permitting to them that handling of Him
which then took place. For certainly he who
gives food to others, and they who give him,
touch hands. For ' they gave Him,' Scripture
says, 'a piece of a broiled fish and of an
honey-comb, and ' when He had ' eaten before
them, He took the remains and gave to them ^.'
See now, though not as Thomas was allowed,
yet by another way. He afforded to them full
assurance, in being touched by them ; but if
you would now see the scars, learn from
Thomas. ' Reach hither thy hand and thrust
it into My side, and reach hither thy finger
and behold My hands?;' so says God the
Word, speaking of His own^ side and hands,
and of Himself as whole man and God to-
a Acts xyii. 31. 3 ii. 44, n. i.
4» fui/Mpir. 5 Luke xxiv. 39.
43, vid. Wetstein itt lee. 7 John xx. aj.
4 John X. 30 ; xiv. 9.
* lb. xxiv. 42,
• Cf. iii. 33, n. s.
gether, first affording to the Saints even per-
ception of the Word througla the body 9, as we
may consider, by entering when the doors were
shut ; and next standing near them in the body
and affording full assurance. So much may be
conveniently said for confirmation of the faith-
ful, and correction of the unbelieving.
^6. And so let Paul of Samosata also stand f
corrected on hearing the divine voice of Him
who said * My body,' not ' Christ besides Me
who am the Word,' but ' Him ' with Me, and Me
with Him.' For I the Word am the chrism, and
that which has the chrism from Me is the
Man^; not then without Me could He be called
Christ, but being with Me and I in Him. There-
fore the mention of the mission of the Word
shews the uniting which took place with Jesus,
born of Mary, Whose Name means Saviour, not
by reason of anything else, but from the Man's
being made one with God the Word. This pas-
sage has the same meaning as ' the Father that
sent Me,' and ' I came not of Myself, but the
Father sent Me 3.' For he has given the name
of mission 4 to the uniting with the Man, with
Whom the Invisible nature might be known to
men, through the visible. For God changes
not place, like us who are hidden in places,
when in the fashion of our littleness He dis-
plays Himself in His existence in the flesh ;
for how should He, who fills the heaven and
the earth ? but on account of the presence in
the flesh the just have spoken of His mission.
Therefore God the Word Himself is Christ
from Mary, God and Man ; not some other
Christ but One and the Same ; He before
ages from the Father, He too in the last times
from the Virgin ; invisible s before even to the
holy powers of heaven, visible now because of
His being one with the Man who is visible ;
seen, I say, not in His invisible Godhead but
in the operation ^ of the Godhead through the
human body and whole Man, which He has
renewed by its appropriation to Himself. To
Him be the adoration and the worship, who
was before, and now is, and ever shall be, even
to all ages. Amen.
9 Vid. I John L i. « i.e. t4v Xp. vid. Matt. ix^. a6.
2 Or. i. 47, n. II. 3 John vi. 44, viii. 42. * § 35, line S
S JDe Sjftt. 27 (15). * ivepyeia, § 14, n. 5.
DE SYNODIS.
(Written 359, added to after 361.)
The de Synodis is the last of the great and important group of writings of the third exile.
With the exception of §§ 30, 31, which were inserted at a later recension after the death of
Constantins (cf. Hist. Ar. 32 end), the work was all written in 359, the year of the 'dated'
creed (§ 4 a-nh tjjs vvv vtrareias) and of the fateful assemblies of Rimini and Seleucia. It was
written moreover after the latter council had broken up (Oct. i), but before the news had
reached Athanasius of the Emperor's chilling reception of the Ariminian deputies, and of the
protest of the bishops against their long detention at that place. The documents connected
with the last named episode reached him only in time for his postscript (§ 55). Still less had
he heard of the melancholy surrender of the deputies of Ariminum at Nik^ on Oct. 10, or of
the final catastrophe (cf the allusion in the inserted § 30, also Prolegg. ch. ii. § 8 {2) Jin.).
The first part only (see Table i7ifra) of the letter is devoted to the history ^ of the twin
councils. Athanasius is probably mistaken in ascribing the movement for a great council to
the Acacian or Homoean anxiety to eclipse and finally set aside the Council of Nicaea. The
Semi-Arians, who were ill at ease and anxious to dissociate themselves from the growing
danger of Anomoeanism, and who at this time had the ear of Constantius, were the persons
who desired a doctrinal settlement. It was the last effort of Eastern ' Conservatism ' (yet see
Gwatkin, Studies, p. 163) to formulate a position which without admitting the obnoxious
oixoovcTiov should yet condemn Arianism, conciliate the West, and restore peace to the Christian
world. The failure of the attempt, gloomy and ignominious as it was, was yet the beginning
of the end, the necessary precursor of the downfall of Arianism as a power within the Church.
The cause of this failure is to be found in the intrigues of the Homoeans, Valens in the West,
Eudoxius and Acacius in the East. Nicaea was chosen by Constantius for the venue of the
great Synod. But Basil, then in high favour, suggested Nicomedia, and thither the bishops
were summoned. Before they could meet, the city was destroyed by an earthquake, and the
venue was changed to Nicsea again. Now the Homoeans saw their opportunity. Their one
chance of escaping disaster was in the principle ' divide et impera.' The Council was divided
into two : the Westerns were to meet at Ariminum, the Easterns at Seleucia in Cilicia, a place
with nothing to recommend it excepting the presence of a strong military force. Hence also
the conference of Homoean and Semi-Arian bishops at Sirmium, who drew up in the presence
of Constantius, on Whitsun-Eve, the famous ' dated ' or ' third Sirmian ' Creed. Its wording
(o/Liotoi' Kara irdvTa) shews the predominant influence of the Semi-Arians, in spite of the efforts of
Valens to get rid of the test words, upon which the Emperor insisted. Basil moreover issued
a separate memorandum to explain the sense in which he signed the creed, emphasising the
absolute likeness of the Son to the Father (Bright, Introd., Ixxxiii., Gwatkin, pp. 168 sq.), and
accepting the Nicene doctrine in everything but the name. But for all Basil might say, the
Dated Creed by the use of the word ofioiov had opened the door to any evasion that an Arian
could desire : for ofioiov is a relative term admitting of degrees : what is only ' like ' is ipsofaeto
to some extent un^i^kt (see below, § 53). The party of Basil, then, entered upon the decisive
contest already outmanoeuvred, and doomed to failure. The events which followed are
described by Athanasius (§§8 — 12). At Ariminum the Nicene, at Seleucia the Semi-Arian
cause carried all before it. The Dated Creed, rejected with scorn at Ariminum, was urisuccess-
fully propounded in an altered form by Acacius at Seleucia. The rupture between Homoeans
and Semi-Arians was complete. So far only does Athanasius carry his account of the Synods : at
this point he steps in with a fresh blow at the link which united Eastern Conservatism with the
mixed multitude of original Arians like Euzoius and Valens, ultra Arians like Aetius and
^ He undertakes to tell aTrep iuipaKo. Koi eyvuv aKpt/Sus, words which have given rise to the romantic but ill-founded tradition
that, ubiquitous and untiring in his exile, he was a secret spectator of the proceedings of his enemies at these distant gatherings.
(So Gibbon and, as far as Seleucia is concerned, Tillemont. Montfaucon, as usual, takes the more sober and likely view.)
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA 449
Eunomius, and Ananismg opportunists like Acacius, Eudoxius, and their tribe. In the latter
he recognises deadly foes who are to be confuted and exposed without any thought of com-
promise ; m the former, brethren who misunderstand their own position, and whom explana-
tion will surely bring round to their natural allies. In this twofold aim the de Synodis stands
in the lines of the great anti-Arian discourses {supra, p. 304). But with the eye of a general
Athanasius suits his attack to the new position. With the Arians, he has done with theological
argument ; he points indignantly to their intrigues and their brow-beating, to their lack of
consistent principle, their endless synods and formularies (§§ 21—32) ; concisely he exposes
the hollowness of their objection to the Nicene formula, the real logical basis upon which their
position rests (§§ 33—40, see Bright, xc— xcii.). But to the Semi-Arians he turns with a serious
and carefully stated vindication of the ofxooxxnov. The time has come to press it earnestly upon
them as the only adequate expression of what they really mean, as the only rampart
which can withstand the Arian invasion. This, the last portion (§§ 41 -54) of the letter,
is _ the raison d'etre of the whole : the account of the Synods ^ is merely a means to
this end, not his main purpose ; the exposure of Arian principles and of Arian variations
subserves the ultimate aim of detaching from them those of whom Athanasius was now
hoping better things. It may be said that he over-rated the hopefulness of affairs as far
as the immediate future was concerned. The weak acceptance by the Seleucian majority (or
rather by their delegates) of the Arian creed of Nike, the triumph of Acacius, Eudoxius and
their party as Constantius drifted in the last two years of his life nearer and nearer to ultra-
Arianism {de Syn. 30, 31, his rupture with Basil, Theodt. ii. 27), the ascendancy of Arianism
under Valens, and the eventual consolidation of a Semi-Arian sect under the name of Mace-
donius, all this at the first glance is a sad commentary upon the hopefulness of the de Synodis.
But (i) even if this were all the truth, Athanasius was right : he was acting a noble part In
the de^ Synodis ' even Athanasius rises above himself.' Driven to bay by the pertinacity of his
enemies, exasperated as we see him in the de Fuga and Arian History, ' yet no sooner is he
cheered with the news of hope than the importunate jealousies of forty years are hushed
(contrast Ep. ^g. 7) in a moment, as though the Lord had spoken peace to the tumult of the
grey old exile's troubled soul' (Gwatkin, Studies, p. 176, Arian Controv., p. 98). The charity
that hopeth all things is always justified of her works. (2) Athanasius, however, was right in
his estimate of the position. Not only did many of the Semi-Arians (e.g. the fifty-nine in 365)
accept the oixooiaiov, but it was from the ranks of the Semi-Arians that the men arose who led
the cause of Nicaea to its ultimate victory in the East There accompanied Basil of Ancyra
from the Seleucian Synod to Constantinople a young deacon and ascetic, who read and
welcomed the appeal of Athanasius. Writing a few months later, this young theologian, Basil of
Caesarea, adopts the words of the de Synodis : ' one God we confess, one in nature not in
number, for number belongs to the category of quantity, . . . neither Like nor Unlike, for these
terms belong to the category of quahty (cf. below, § 53) ... He that is essentially God is Co-
essential with Him that is essentially God .... If I am to state my own opinion, I accept
"Like in essence" with the addition of "exactly" as identical in sense with " Coessential " . ..
but " exactly like " [without " essence "] I suspect . . . Accordingly since " Coessential "
is the term less open to abuse, on this ground I too adopt it' {£pp. S, 9, the Greek in
Gwatkin, Studies, p. 242) ^ Basil the Great is, not indeed the only, but the conspicuous
and abundant justification of the insight of Athanasius in the de Synodis.
Turning to subordinate parts of the Letter, we may note the somewhat unfair use made of the unlucky blunder
of the Dated Creed, as though its compilers thereby admitted that their faith had no earlier origin. The dating of
the creed was doubtless ' an offence against good taste as well as ecclesiastical propriety ' (as sad a blunder in its
way as Macaulay's celebrated letter to his constituents from ' Windsor Castle '), and it was only in human nature
to make the most of it. More serious is the objection taken to the revolting title Auyovarov rov aloDviou (which
set a bad precedent for later times, Bright, Ixxxiv, note 4) in contrast to the denial of the eternity of the Son. At
any rate, lending itself as it did to such obvious criticisms, we are not surprised to read (§ 29) that the copies of the
creed were hastily called in and a fresh recension substituted for it.
Lastly it must be remembered that Athanasius does not aim at giving a complete catalogue of Arian
or Arianising creeds, any more than at giving a full history of the double council. Accordingly we miss (i) the
confession of Arius and Euzoius, presented to Constantine in 330 ; (2) The confession ' colourless in wording, but
heterodox in aim,' drawn up at Sirmium 3 against Photinus in 347 (Hil. Frns^m. 2. 21 sq. Hefele, vol. i. p. 192) ;
(3) The formulary propounded by the Emperor at Milan in 355 (Hil, Syn. 78) ; (4) The confession of the council
of Ancyra*, 358, alluded to §41, see n. 9); (5) The Anomoean Ecthesis of Eudoxius and Aetius, Constan-
tinople 359 (Thdt. H.E. ii. 27).
» Observe also that the Semi-Arian document of reconciliation in 363 vSocr. iii. 25) adopts the point pressed in de Syn. 41.
3 This is, strictly speaking, the ' first' Sirmian creed, but in the Table below that of 351 is counted as such.
4 The ' Semi-Arian digest of three confessions,' number 5 in Newman's list of Sirmian creeJs, is left out of the reckoning here, as
the confused statement oiSoz. iv. 15, is the sole evidence for its existence. It cannot be the confession referred to in Hil. Fra^m. vi.
6, 7. IJut see Newman, Arians, Appendix iii. note 5 ; Gwatkin, Studies, pp. 162, 189, sub Jin.
VOL. IV. G g
450 DE SYNODIS.
In the de Synodis we have a worthy conclusion of the anti-Arian writings which are the legacy and the
record of the most stirring and eventful period of the noble life of our great bishop.
The translation of this tract by Newman has been more closely revised than those of the ' de Decretis ' and
the first three ' Discourses,' as it appeared somewhat less exact in places. In §§ lo, ii, the Athanasian version
has been followed, as, inaccurate as the version certainly is in places, this seemed more suitable to an edition
of Athanasius; moreover, it appears to preserve some more original readings than the Hilarian text. The
notes have been curtailed to some extent, especially those containing purely historical matter.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PART I. History of the Double Council.
§ I. The reason of any new council having been called.
§ 2. The superfluity of such assemblies.
§§ 3» 4* Monstrosity of a dated creed.
§5. Necessity of the Nicene Council.
§ 6. Its decisions make any fresh council unnecessary.
§ 7. The true motives of the promoters of the new councils.
§§8 — II. Proceedings of the 0,00 at Ariminum.
§ 8. The ' Dated' Creed propounded.
§ 9. Rejection of the Dated Creed and deposition of Valens, &c.
§ 10. The Council's Letter to the Emperor.
§ II. Decree of the Council.
§ 12. Proceedings of the 160 at Seleucia Trachea.
Deposition of Acacius, &c., and report to the Emperor.
§ 13, 14. Reflections on the two councils, especially as to the divergence of the Arians from the Fathers and
from each other.
PART II. History of Arian Creeds.
§ 15. The belief of Arius as expressed in his Thalia.
§ 16. Letter of Arius to Alexander.
§17. Statements of early partizans of Arius.
§§ 18, 19. Extracts from Asterius the sophist.
§ 20. The true character of this doctrine.
Arian Councils and their foniiulat-ies.
% 21. Jerusalem (335). Letter announcing reception of Arius to Communion.
§ 22. Antioch (' Dedication ' 341). First creed.
§ 23. Second (Lucianic) Creed.
§ 24. Third creed (of Theophronius).
§ 25. Fourth creed {342 ; revision of the Nicene).
§ 26. (344) Fifth creed : the ' Macrostich ' (the fourth with additions and explanations).
§ 27. Sirmiuvi (against Photinus, 351, fourth of Antioch with 27 anathemas), the • First' Sirmian.
§ 28. ' Second Sirmian' (357, the ' blasphemy ').
§ 29. Creed propounded by the Acacians at Seleucia (359, the ' Dated ' Creed revised in Homcean sense).
f§ 30. Creed of Nike and Constantinople (359,360, a new recension of the 'Dated' Creed, rejecting
' Hypostasis ' as well as ' Essence.')
§ 31. A further Anomoean creed published under the patronage of Constantius at Antioch (361)].
§ 32. Reflections on the significance of these many changes.
PART III. Appeal to the Semi-Arians.
^- §§ 33 — ^40- Homaeans confided.
§ 33. The terms objected to give offence only because misunderstood.
§ 34. The true Divinity of Christ implies ' Coessential.'
§ 35' To reject the term implies that Christ is a creature.
§ 36. The objection to ' unscriptural ' language condemns the Arians.
§§ 37» 38' If the Son is truly ' Like ' the Father, he is ' Coessential.'
§ 39. The sense, not the occurrence of the terms in Scripture, must be attended to.
§ 40. Alleged obscurity of the Nicene formula.
b. §§41 — 54- Semi-Ai-ians conciliated.
§ 41. The party of Basil of Ancyra are with us on the main question.
§ 42. ' Coessential ' conveys a meaning which they would adopt.
§§ 43, 44. Alleged rejection of the term by the 70 bishops at Antioch, subsequent to its recognition by
Dionysius of Alexandria.
§ 45. We must not hastily assume contradictions between the Fathers.
§§ 46, 47. Parallel of the word ' Unoriginate.' ^
§ 48. ' Coessential ' guards the acknowledged attributes of the Son. '
§ 49. The Son is all that the Fatlier is, except Father.
§ 50. If the Son is not Coessential, the Unity of the Godhead is lost.
§ 5^. The Son cannot impart to man what is not His own ; The oneness of Essence does not imply
a common or prior essence.
§ 52- The Son not an independent God.
§ 53- ' Coessential' why preferable to ' Like in Essence.'
§ 54' Appeal for union among those who are really agreed.
Postscript (supplementing Part I. )
§ 55* Reply of Constantius to the Council of Ariminum, and remonstrance of the bishops upon receipt of it.
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA.
PART I.
History of the Councils.
Reason why two Councils were called. Inconsistency
and folly of calling any; and of the style of the
Arian formularies ; occasion of the Nicene Council ;
proceedings at Ariminum ; Letter of the Council to
Constantius ; its decree. Proceedings at Seleucia ;
reflections on the conduct of the Arians.
I. Perhaps news has reached even your-
selves concerning the Council, which is at this
time the subject of general conversation ; for
letters both from the Emperor and the Pre-
fects ^ were circulated far and wide for its
convocation. However, you take that interest
in the events which have occurred, that I have
determined upon giving you an account of
what I have seen myself, and accurately as-
certained, which may save you from the sus-
pense attendant on the reports of others ; and
this the more, because there are parties who
are in the habit of misrepresenting what has
happened. At Nicasa then, which had been fixed
upon, the Council has not met, but a second
edict was issued, convening the Western Bishops
at Ariminum in Italy, and the Eastern at Se-
leucia the Rugged, as it is called, in Isauria.
The professed reason of such a meeting was
to treat of the faith touching our Lord Jesus
Christ ; and those who alleged it, were Ursa-
cius, Valens, and one Germinius ^ from Pan-
nonia ; and from Syria, Acacius, Eudoxius,
and Patrophilus 3 of Scythopolis. These men
who had always been of the Arian party, and
* understood neither how they believe or
whereof they affirm,' and were silently de-
ceiving first one and then another, and scat-
tering the second sowing * of their heresy,
influenced some who seemed to be somewhat,
and the Emperor Constantius among them,
being a heretic s, on some pretence about the
Faith, to call a Council ; under the idea that
I [On the Prefects, see Gibbon, ch. xvii., and Gwatkin, pp.
272 — 281.]
a [Cf. I/isi. Ar. 74, D.C.B. ii. 661.J At a later date he ap.
proached very nearly to Catholicism.
3 [See Proleg^. ch. ii. § 3 (i), and, on the Arian leaders at this
time, § 8 (2).] 4 Cf. de Deer. § 2. S Itt/r. § 12, note.
they should be able to put into the shade the
Nicene Council, and prevail upon all to turn
round, and to establish irreligion everywhere
instead of the Truth.
2. Now here I marvel first, and think that
I shall carry every sensible man whatever with
me, that, whereas a General Council had been
fixed, and all were looking forward to it, it
was all of a sudden divided into two, so that
one part met here, and the other there. How-
ever, this was surely the doing of Providence, in
order in the respective Councils to exhibit the
faith without guile or corruption of the one party,
and to expose the dishonesty and duplicity
of the other. Next, this too was on the mind
of myself and my true brethren here, and made
us anxious, the impropriety of this great ga-
thering which we saw in progress ; for what
pressed so much, that the whole world was»
to be put in confusion, and those who at the
time bore the profession of clergy, should run
about far and near, seeking how best to learn
to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ ? Certainly
if they were believers already, they would not
have been seeking, as though they were not.
And to the catechumens, this was no small
scandal ; but to the heathen, it was something
more than common, and even furnished broad
merriment ', that Christians, as if waking out
of sleep at this time of day, should be en-
quiring how they were to believe concerning
Christ ; while their professed clergy, though
claiming deference from their flocks, as teachers,
were unbelievers on their own shewing, in that
thev were seeking what they had not. And
the party of Ursacius, who were at the bottom
of all this, did not understand what wrath they
were storing up (Rom. ii. 5) against them
selves, as our Lord says by His saints, ' Woe
unto them, through whom My Name is blas-
phemed among the Gentiles ' (Is. lii. 5 ; Rom.
ii. 24) ; and by His own mouth in the
Gospels (Matt, xviii. 6), 'Whoso sliall ofiend
one of these little ones, it were better for him
t Ct. Ammianus, Hist. xxi. z6. Eusebius, Vit. Come. ii. 6t.
Gga
452
DE SYNODIS.
that a millstone were hanged about his neck,
and that he were drowned in the depth of
the sea, than,' as Luke adds, ' that he should
offend one of these little ones' (Luke xvii. 2).
3. What defect of teaching was there for
religious truth in the Catholic Church % that
they should enquire concerning faith now, and
should prefix this year's Consulate to their
profession of faith ? For Ursacius and Valens
and Germinius and their friends have done
what never took place, never was heard of
among Christians. After putting into writing
what it pleased them to believe, they prefix
to it the Consulate, and the month and the
day of the current year 3 ; thereby to shew all
sensible men, that their faith dates, not from
of old, but now, from the reign of Constan-
tius 4 ; for whatever they write has a view to
their own heresy. Moreover, though pretend-
ing to write about the Lord, they nominate
another master for themselves, Constantius,
who has bestowed on them this reign of ir-
religion 5 ; and they who deny that the Son
is everlasting, have called him Eternal Em-
peror ; such foes of Christ are they in addition
to irreligion. But perhaps the dates in the
holy Prophets form their excuse for the Con-
sulate ; so bold a pretence, however, will
serve but to publish more fully their igno-
rance of the subject. For the prophecies
of the saints do indeed specify their times
(for instance, Isaiah and Hosea lived in
the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and
Hezekiah ; Jeremiah in the days of Josiah ;
Ezekiel and Daniel prophesied under Cyrus
and Darius ; and others in other times) ; yet
they were not laying the foundations of divine
religion ; it was before them, and was always,
for before the foundation of the world
God prepared it for us in Christ. Nor were
they signifying the respective dates of their
own faith ; for they had been believers before
these dates. But the dates did but belong
to their own preaching. And this preaching
spoke beforehand of the Saviour's coming, but
directly of what was to happen to Israel and
the nations ; and the dates denoted not the
commencement of faith, as I said before, but
of the prophets themselves, that is, when it
was they thus prophesied. But our modern
sages, not in historical narration, nor in pre-
diction of the future, but, after writing, ' The
Catholic Faith was published,' immediately
add the Consulate and the month and the
a Cf. Orat. ii. § 34. And Hilary de Syn. 91 ; ad Const, ii. 7.
3 Cf. Hil. ad Const, ii. 4, 5.
4 Cf. TertuU. de Prascr. 37 ; Hil. de Trin. vi. 21 ; Vincent.
Lir, Commonit. 24 ; Jerom. in Ludf. 27 ; August, de Bait, contr.
Don. iii. 3.
5 [Cf. Hist. Ar. g§ 52 66, 76, 44, and Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2),
C. 2, and § 6(1) ]
day, that, as the saints specified the dates
of their histories, and of their own minis-
tries, so these may mark the date of their own
faith. And would that they had written, touch-
ing ' their own ^ ' (for it does date from to-
day) ; and had not made their essay as touch-
ing 'the Cathohc,' for they did not write,
'Thus we beheve,' but 'the Catholic Faith
was published.'
4. The boldness then of their design shews
how little they understand the subject ; while
the novelty of their phrase matches the Arian
heresy. For thus they shew, when it was they
began their own faith, and that from that same
time present they would have it proclaimed.
And as according to the Evangelist Luke,
there ' was made a decree ' (Luke ii. i) con-
cerning the taxing, and this decree before was
not, but began from those days in which it
was made by its framer, they also in like man-
ner, by writing, ' The Faith is now published,'
shewed that the sentiments of their heresy are
novel, and were not before. But if they add
' of the Catholic Faith,' they fall before they
know it into the extravagance of the Phry-
gians, and say with them, 'To us first was
revealed,' and 'from us dates the Faith of
Christians.' And as those inscribe it with the
names of Maximilla and Montanus?, so do
these with 'Constantius, Master,' instead of
Christ. If, however, as they would have it,
the faith dates from the present Consulate,
what will the Fathers do, and the blessed
Martyrs ? nay, what will they themselves do
with their own catechumens, who departed to
rest before this Consulate ? how will they wake
them up, that so they m.ay obliterate their
former lessons, and may sow in turn the
seeming discoveries which they have now put
into writing ^ ? So ignorant they are on the
subject; with no knowledge but that of
making excuses, and those unbecoming and
unplausible, and carrying with them their
own refutation.
5. As to the Nicene Council, it was not
a common meeting, but convened upon a
pressing necessity, and for a reasonable object.
The Syrians, Cihcians, and Mesopotamians,
were out of order in celebrating the Feast,
and kept Easter with the Jews 9 ; on the other
hand, the Arian heresy had risen up against
the Cathohc Church, and found supporters in
Eusebius and his fellows, who were both zealous
6 ' He who speaketh of his own, « tu>v ISCutv, speaketh a lie.*
Athan. contr. Apoll. i. fin. . . . The Simonists, Dositheans, &c.
. . . each privately (tSiojc) and separately has brought in a private
opinion.' Hegesippus, ap Euseb. Hist. iv. 22. Sophronius at
Seleucia cried out, ' If to publish day after day our own private
(tSiai/) will, be a professioa of faith, accuracy of truth will fail
us.' Socr. ii. 40. 7 Vid. su^r. Orat. iii. § 47.
8 Cf. Tertull. Prascr. 29 ; Vincent, Comni. 24 ; Greg. Naz. ad
Cledon P.p. 102, p. 97. 9 Cf D.C.A. i. 58S sqq.
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA.
45:
for the heresy, and conducted the attack upon
religious people. This gave occasion for an
Ecumenical Council, that the feast might be
everywhere celebrated on one day, and that
the heresy which was springing up might be
anathematized. It took place then ; and the
Syrians submitted, and the Fathers pro-
nounced the Arian heresy to be the forerunner
of Antichrist ^°, and drew up a suitable formula
against it. And yet in this, many as they are,
they ventured on nothing like the proceedings"
of these three or four men ". Without pre-
fixing Consulate, month, and day, they wrote
concerning Easter, ' It seemed good as follows,'
for it did then seem good that there should be
a general compHance ; but about the faith
they wrote not, ' It seemed good,' but, ' Thus
believes the CathoHc Church;' and thereupon
they confessed how they believed, in order to
shew that their own sentiments were not novel,
but Apostolical; and what they wrote down
was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as
was taught by the Apostles ^3.
6. But the Councils which they are now set-
ting in motion, what colourable pretext have
they ' ? If any new heresy has risen since the
Arian, let them tell us the positions which it
has devised, and who are its inventors? and in
their own formula, let them anathematize the
heresies antecedent to this Council of theirs,
among which is the Arian, as the Nicene
Fathers did, that it may appear that they too
have some cogentreason for saying what is novel.
But if no such event has happened, and they
have it not to shew, but rather they themselves
are uttering heresies, as holding Anus's irre-
ligion, and are exposed day by day, and day
by day shift their ground % what need is there
of Councils, when the Nicene is sufficient, as
against the Arian heresy, so against the rest,
which it has condemned one and all by means
of the sound faith? For even the notorious
Aetius, who was surnamed godless 3, vaunts
not of the discovering of any mania of his
own, but under stress of weather has been
wrecked upon Arianism, himself and the
"> irpoSpojiios, prxcursor, is almost a received word for the
predicted apostasy or apostate (vid. note on S. Cyril's Cat.
jLV. g), but the distinction was not always carefully drawn
between the apostate and the Antichrist. [Cf. both terms applied
to Constantius, HisL Ar. passim, and by Hilary and Lucifer.]
" At Seleucia Acacius said, ' If the Nicene faith has been
altered once and many times since, no reason why we should not
dictate another faith now.' Eleusius the Scmi-Arian answered,
' This Council is called, not to learn what it does not know, not
to receive a faith whicli it does not possess, but walking in the
faith of the fathers' (meaning the Council of the Dedication.
A.D. 341. vid. !n/r. § 22), 'it swerves not from it in life or
death." On this Socrates (Hist, ii 40) observes, 'How call you
those who met at Antioch Fathers, O Eleusius, you who deny
iheir Fathers,' &c.
" o\Cyoi Tcvec, says Pope Julius, su^r. p. 118, cf. Tives, p. 225.
13 In/r. § 9, note. ' Ad £Ji. ^ir. 10.
2 Vid. </e Deer. init. and § 4. We shall have abundant in-
stances of the Arian changes as this Treatise proceeds. Cf. Htlary
contr. Constant. 23. Vincent Comtn, so.
3 Vid. de Deer. i. note.
persons whom he has beguiled. Vainly then
do they run about with the pretext that they
have demanded Councils for the faith's sake;
for divine Scripture is sufficient above all
things ; but if a Council be needed on the
point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers,
for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this
matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that
persons reading their words honestly, cannot
but be reminded by them of the religion
towards Christ announced in divine Scrip
ture 4.
7. Having therefore no reason on their side,
but being in difficulty whichever way they
turn, in spite of their pretences, they have no-
thing left but to say ; ' Forasmuch as we
contradict our predecessors, and transgress the
traditions of the Fathers, therefore we have
thought good that a Council should meet s ;
but again, whereas we fear lest, should it meet
at one place, our pains will be thrown away,
therefore we have thought good that it be
divided into two ; that so when we put forth
our documents to these separate portions, we
may overreach with more effect, with the
threat of Constantius the patron of this irre-
ligion, and may supersede the acts of Nicsea,
under pretence of the simplicity of our own
documents.' If they have not put this into
words, yet this is the meaning of their deeds
and their disturbances. Certainly, many and
frequent as have been their speeches and
writings in various Councils, never yet have
they made mention of the Arian heresy as
objectionable ; but, if any present happened to
accuse the heresies, they always took up the
defence of the Arian, which the Nicene
Council had anathematized ; nay, rather, they
cordially welcomed the professors of Arianism.
This then is in itself a strong argument, that
the aim of the present Councils was not truth,
but the annulling of the acts of Nicaea ; but
the proceedings of them and their friends in
the Councils themselves, make it equally clear
that this was the case : — For now we must
relate everything as it occurred.
8. When all were in expectation that they
were to assemble in one place, whom the Em-
peror's letters convoked, and to form one
Council, they were divided into two ; and,
while some betook themselves to Seleucia
called the Rugged, the others met at Arimi-
num, to the number of those four hundred
bishops and more, among whom were Ger-
minius, Auxentius, Valens, Ursacius, Demo-
philus, and Gaius ^. And, while the whole
assembly was discussing the matter from the
4 Vid. de Deer. 32, note.
5 Cf. the opinion of Nectarius and Sisinnius, Socr. v. lo.
6 [On Demophilus and Gaius see D.C.B. i. 812, 387(20); on
Auxentius, ad Afr. note g.]
454
DE SYNODIS.
Divine Scriptures, these men produced ^ a
paper, and, reading out the Consulate, they de-
manded that it should be preferred to every
Council, and that no questions should be put
to the heretics beyond it, nor inquiry made
into their meaning, but that it should be suffi-
cient by itself; — and what they had written
ran as follows : —
The Catholic Faith ^ was published in the presence
of our Master the most religious and gloriously victor-
ious Emperor, Constantius, Augustus, the eternal and
august, in the Consulate of the most illustrious Flavii,
Eusebius and Hypatius, in Sirmium on the Ilth of the
Calends of June'.
We believe in one Only and True God, the Father
Almighty, Creator and Framer of all things :
And in one Only-begotten Son of God, who, before all
ages, and before all origin, and before all conceivable time,
and before all comprehensible essence, was begotten im-
passibly from God : through whom the ages were disposed
and all things were made ; and Him begotten as the
Only-begotten, Only from the Only Father, God from
God, like to the Father who begat Him, according to the
Scriptures ; whose origin no one knoweth save the
Father alone who begat Him. We know that He, the
Only-begotten Son of God, at the Father's bidding
came from the heavens for the abolishment of sin, and
was born of the Virgin Mary, and conversed with the
disciples, and fulfilled the Economy according to the
Father's will, and was crucified, and died and de-
scended into the parts beneath the earth, and reijulated
the things there. Whom the gate-keepers of hell saw
(Job xxxviii. 17, LXX.) and shuddered; and He rose
from the dead the third day, and conversed with the
disciples, and fulfilled all the Economy, and when the
forty days were full, ascended into tlie heavens, and
sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and is coming
in the last day of the resurrection in the glory of the
Father, to render to every one according to his works.
And in the Holy Ghost, whom the Only-begotten
of God Himself, Jesus Christ, had promised to send to
the race of men, the Paraclete, as it is written, 'I go to
My Father, and I will ask the Father, and He shall
send unto you another Paraclete, even the Spirit of
Truth He shall take of Mine and shall teach and bring
to your remembrance all things' (Joh. xiv. 16, 17, 26 ;
xvi. 14).
But whereas the term 'essence,' has been adopted by
the Fathers in simplicity, and gives offence as being
misconceived by the people, and is not contained in the
Scriptures, it has seemed good to remove it, that it be
never in any case used of God again, because the divine
Scriptures nowhere use it of Father and Son. But we
say that the Son is like the Father in all things, as also
the Holy Scriptures say and teach '.
9. When this had been read, the dishonesty
of its fraraers was soon apparent. For on the
Bishops proposing that the Arian heresy should
be anathematized together with the other here-
sies too, and all assenting, Ursacius and Valens
and those with them refused; till in the event the
Fathers condemned them, on the ground that
their confession had been written, not in
sincerity, but for the annulling of the acts of
7 [See Prolegg. ch. ii. § 8 (2), and Introd. to this Tract.]
8 8th Confession, or 3rd Sirmian, of 359, vid. § 29, infr.
9 May 22, 359, Whitsun-Eve.
I On the last clause, see Prolegg. ubi supra.
Nicsea, and the introduction instead of their
unhappy heresy. Marvelling then at the deceit-
fulness of their language and their unprincipled
intentions, the Bishops said : ' Not as if in need
of faith have we come hither; for we have
within us faith, and that in soundness : but
that we may put to shame those who gainsay
the truth and attempt novelties. If then ye
have drawn up this formula, as if now begin-
ning to believe, ye are not so much as clergy,
but are starting with school ; but if you meet us
with the same views with which we have come
hither, let there be a general unanimity, and let
us anathematize the heresies, and preserve the
teaching of the Fathers. Thus pleas for
Councils will not longer circulate about, the
Bishops at Nicaea having anticipated them once
for all, and done all that was needful for the
Catholic Church ^' However, even then, in
spite of this general agreement of the Bishops,
still the above-mentioned refused. So at length
the whole Council, condemning them a&
ignorant and deceitful men, or rather as
heretics, gave their suffrages in behalf of the
Nicene Council, and gave judgment all of them
that it was enough ; but as to the forenamed
Ursacius and Valens, Germinius, Auxentius,
Gaius, and Demophilus, they pronounced them
to be heretics, deposed them as not really
Christians, but Arians, and wrote against them
in Latin what has been translated in its sub-
stance into Greek, thus .: — •
10. Copy of an Epistle from the Council to-
Constantius Augustus 3.
We believe that what was formerly decreed was
brought about both by God's command and by order of
your piety. For we the bishops, from all the Western
cities, assembled together at Ariminum, both that the
Faith of the Catholic Church might be made known,
and that gainsayers might be detected. For, as we
have found after long deliberation, it appeared desirable
to adhere to and maintain to the end, that faith which,
enduring from antiquity, we have received as preached
by the prophets, the Gospels, and the Apostles through
our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is Keeper of your Kingdom
and Patron of your power. For it appeared wrong and
unlawful to make any change in what was rightly and
justly defined, and what was resolved upon in common
at Nicaea along with the Emperor your lather, the most
glorious Con^tantine, — the doctrine and spirit of which
[definition] went abroad and was proclaimed in the
hearing and understanding of all men. For it alone was
the conqueror and destroyer of the heresy of Arius, by
which not that only but the other heresies * also were de-
stroyed, to which of a truth it is perilous to add, and full
of danger to minish aught from it, since if either be done,
our enemies will be able with impunity to do whatever
they will.
Accordingly Ursacius and Valens, since they had been
* [Cf. Tom. ad Ant. 5, Soz. iii. la.]
3 Cf. Socr. ii. 39 ; Soz. iv. 10 ; Theod. H.E. ii. 19 ; Niceph. i.
40. The Latin original is preserved by Hilary, Fragm. viii., but
the Greek is followed here, as stated sup?: Introd.
4 The Hilarian Latin is much briefer here.
i
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA.
455
from of old abettors and sympathisers of the Arian
dogma, were properly declared separate from our com-
munion, to be admitted to which they asked to be allowed
a place of repentance and pardon for the transgressions
of which they were conscious, as the documents drawn
up by them testify. By which means forgiveness and
pardon on all charges has been obtained. Now the time
of these transactions was when the council was assembled
at Milan ''% the presbyters of the Roman Church being
also present. But knowing at the same time that Con-
stantine of worthy memory had with all accuracy and
deliberation published the Faith then drawn up ; when
he had been baptized by the hands of men, and had
departed to the place which was his due, [we think it]
unseemly to make a subsequent innovation and to despise
so many saints, confessors, martyrs, who compiled and
drew up this decree; who moreover have continued to
hold in all matters according to the ancient law of the
Church ; whose faith God has imparted even to the times
of your reign through our Master Jesus Christ, through
whom also it is yours to reign and rule over the world in
our day 5. Once more then the pitiful men of wretched
mind with lawless daring have announced themselves as
the heralds of an impious opinion, and are attempting to
upset every summary of truth. For when according to
your command the synod met, those men laid bare the
design of their own deceitfulness. For they attempted
in a certain unscrupulous and disorderly manner to pro-
pose to us an innovation, having found as accomplices in
this plot Germinius, Auxentius 5% and Gains, the stirrers
up of strife and discord, whose teaching by itself has gone
beyond every pitch of blasphemy. But when they per-
ceived that we did not share their purpose, nor agree
with their evil mind, they transferred themselves to our
council, alleging that it might be advisable to compile
something instead. But a short time was enough to
expose their plans. And lest the Churches should
have a recurrence of these disturbances, and a whirl of
discord and confusion throw everything into disorder, it
seemed good to keep undisturbed the ancient and reason-
able institutions, and that the above persons should be
separated from our communion. For the information
therefore of your clemency, we have instructed our
legates to acquaint you with the judgment of the Council
by our letter, to whom we have given this special direc-
tion, to establish the truth by resting their case upon the
ancient and just decrees ; and they will also assure your
piety that peace would not be accomplished by the
removal of those decrees as Yalens and Ursacius
alleged. For how is it possible for peace-breakers
to bring peace ? on the contrary, by their means
strife and confusion will arise not only in the other
cities, but also in the Church of the Romans.
On this account we ask your clemency to regard our
legates with favourable ears and a serene countenance,
and not to suffer aught to be abrogated to the dishonour
of the dead ; but allow us to abide by what has been
defined and laid down by our forefathers, who, we
venture to say, we trust in all things acted with prudence
and wisdom and the Holy Spirit ; because by these
novelties not only are the faithful made to disbelieve,
but the infidels also are embittered s''. We pray also that
you would give orders that so many Bishops who are
detained abroad, among whom are numbers who are
broken with age and poverty, may be enabled to return
to their own country, lest the Churches suffer, as being
'*" 347-
5 The whole passage is either much expanded by Athan., or
much condensed by Hilary.
5» Auxentius, omitted in Hilary's copy. A few words are want-
ing in ihe Latin in the commencement of one of the sentences
which follow. [See above, note 3.]
S*" The Greek here mistranslates ' credulitatem ' as though it
were ' crudelitatem.' The original sense is the heathen are kept
back from believing.
deprived of their Bishops. This, however, we ask with
earnestness, that nothing be innovated upon existing
creeds, nothing withdrawn ; but that all remain incorrupt
which has continued in the times of your Father's piety
and to the present time ; and that you will not permit us
to be harassed, and estranged from our sees ; but that the
Bishops may in quiet give themselves always to prayers
and worship, which they do always offer for your own
safety and for your reign, and for peace, which may the
Divinity bestow on you for ever. But our legates are
conveying the subscriptions and titles of the Bishops,
and will also inform your piety from the Holy Scriptures
themselves.
II. Decree of the Council^.
As far as it was fitting and possible, dearest brethren,
the general Council and the holy Church have had
patience, and have generously displayed the Church's
forbearance towards Ursacius and Valens, Gains, Ger-
minius, and Auxentius ; who by so often changing what
they had believed, have troubled all the Churches, and
still are endeavouring to foist their heretical spirit upon
the faith of the orthodox. For they wish to annul the
formulary passed at Nicsea, which was framed against
the Arian heresy. They have presented to us besides a
creed drawn up by themselves from without, and utterly
alien to the most holy Church ; which we could not law-
fully receive. Even before this, and now, have they
been pronounced heretics and gainsayers by us, whom we
have not admitted to our communion, but condemned
and deposed them in their presence by our voices. Now
then, what .seems good to you, again declare, that each
one's vote may be ratified by his subscription.
The Bishops answered with one accord. It seems good
that the aforenamed heretics should be condemned,
that the Catholic faith may remain in peace.
Matters at Ariminum then had this speedy
issue ; for there was no disagreement there, but
all of them with one accord both put into
writing what they decided upon, and deposed
the Arian s 7.
12. Meanwhile the transactions in Seleucia
the Rugged were as follows : it was in the month
called by the Romans September, by the
Egyptians Thoth, and by the Macedonians
Gorpiaeus, and the day of the month according
to the Egyptians the i6th^, upon which all the
members of the Council assembled together.
And there were present about a hundred and
sixty ; and whereas there were many who were
accused among them, and their accusers were
crying out against them, Acacius, and Patro-
philus, and Uranius of Tyre, and Eudoxius,
who usurped the Church of Antioch, and
Leontius^'', and Theodotus^'', and Evagrius, and
* This Decree is also preserved in Hilary, who has besides pre-
served the ' Catholic Definition ' of the Council, in which it pro-
fesses its adherence to the Creed of Nicaea, and, in opposition to the
Sirmian Confession which the Arians had proposed, acknowledges
in particular both the word and the meaning of ' substance :' 'sub-
stantiae nomen et rem, a multis Sanctis Scripturis iiisinuatam men-
tibus nostris, obtinere debere sui firmitatem." Fragvt. vii. 3. [The
decree is now re-translated from the Greek.]
7 [On the subsequent events at Ariminum, see PrOlegg. ubi
supra.]
8 i.e. Sep. 14. 359 (Egyptian leap-year.) Gorpiaeus was the
first month of the Syro-Macedonic year among the Greeks, dating
according to the era of the Seleucidae. The original transactions at
Ariminum had at this time been finished as much as two months,
and its deputies were waiting for Constantius at Constantinople.
8" [Of Tripolis, D.C.B. iii. 688 (3).] S*- ['Theodosius' in/r.1
456
DE SYNODIS.
Theodulus, and George who has been driven
from the whole world 9, adopt an unprincipled
course. Fearing the proofs which their accusers
had to shew against them, they coalesced with
the rest of the Arian party (who were mer-
cenaries in the cause of irreligion for this
purpose, and were ordained by Secundus, who
had been deposed by the great Council), the
Libyan Stephen, and Seras, and Polydeuces, who
were under accusation upon various charges,
next Pancratius, and one Ptolemy a Meletian'°.
And they made a pretence " of entering upon
the question of faith, but it was clear they were
doing so from fear of their accusers ; and they
took the part of the heresy, till at length they
were divided among themselves. For, where-
as those with Acacius and his fellows lay
under suspicion and were very few, the others
were the majority ; therefore Acacius and his
fellows, acting with the boldness of desperation,
altogether denied the Nicene formula, and
censured the Council, while the others, who
were the majority, accepted the whole proceed-
ings of the Council, except that they complained
of the word ' Coessential,' as obscure and so
open to suspicion. When then time passed,
and the accusers pressed, and the accused put
in pleas, and thereby were led on further by
their irreligion and blasphemed the Lord,
thereupon the majority of Bishops became
indignant '% and deposed Acacius, Patrophilus,
Uranius, Eudoxius, and George the contractor',
and others from Asia, Leontius, and Theodo-
sius, Evagrius and Theodulus, and excommuni-
cated Asterius, Eusebius, Augarus, Basihcus,
Phoebus, Fidelius, Eutychius, and Magnus.
And this they did on their non-appearance,
when summoned to defend themselves on
charges which numbers preferred against them.
And they decreed that so they should remain,
until they made their defence and cleared
themselves of the offences imputed to them.
And after despatching the sentence pronounced
against them to the diocese of each, they pro-
9 There is little to observe of these Acacian Bishops in addition
to [the names and sees in Epiph. Har. Ixxiii. 26] except that
George is the Cappadocian, the notorious intruder into the see of
S. Athanasius. [For his expulsion see Fest. Ind. xxx, and on the
composition of the council, see Gwatkin, note G, p. 190.]
10 The Meletian schismatics of Egypt had formed an alliance
with the Arians from the first. Cf. Ep. /Eg. 22. vid. also Hist.
Arian. 31, 78. After Sardica the Arians attempted a coalition
with the Donatists of Africa. Aug. contr. Cresc. iii. 38.
I' Acacius had written to the Semi-Arian Macedonius of Con-
stantinople in favour of the Kara ■ko.vto. oy-oiov, and of the Son's
being 7175 aurrjs oucrt'as, and this the Council was aware of. Soz.
iv. 22. Acacius made answer that no one ancient or modern was
ever judged by his writings. Socr. ii. 40.
" They also confirmed the Semi-Arian Confession of the Dedi-
cation, 341. of which infr. § 22. After this the Acacians drew up
another Confession, which Athan. has preserved, infr. % 29. in
which they persist in their rejection of all but Scripture terms.
This the Semi-Arian majority rejected, and proceeded to depose
its authors.
I Pork contractor to the troops, viroScKTrji/, Hist. Arian. 75.
v\l. Naz. Orat. 21. 16.
ceeded to Constantius, the most irreligious '
Augustus, to report to him their proceedings, as
they had been ordered. And this was the
termination of the Council in Seleucia.
13. Who then but must approve of the
conscientious conduct of the Bishops at Ari-
minum ? who endured such labour of journey
and perils of sea, that by a sacred and canoni-
cal resolution they might depose the Arians,
and guard inviolate the definitions of the
Fathers. For each of them deemed that, if
they undid the acts of their predecessors, they
were affording a pretext to their successors to
undo what they themselves then were enacting^.
And who but must condemn the fickleness of
Eudoxius, Acacius, and their fellows, who sa-
crifice the honour due to their own fathers to
partizanship and patronage of the Ario-ma-
niacs4? for what confidence can be placed
in their acts, if the acts of their fathers be
undone? or how call they them fathers and
themselves successors, if they set about im-
peaching their judgment ? and especially what
can Acacius say of his own master, Eusebius,
who not only gave his subscription in the
Nicene Council, but even in a letters signified
to his flock, that that was true faith, which the
Council had declared? for, if he explained
himself in that letter in his own way^, yet he
did not contradict the Council's terms, but
even charged it upon the Arians, that their
position that the Son was not before His
generation, was not even consistent with His
being before Mary. What then will they pro-
ceed to teach the people who are under their
teaching? that the Fathers erred? and how
are they themselves to be trusted by those,
whom they teach to disobey their Teachers?
and with what eyes too will they look upon
the sepulchres of the Fathers whom they now
name heretics ? And why do they defame the
Valentinians, Phrygians, and Manichees, yet
give the name of saint to those whom they
themselves suspect of making parallel state-
ments ? or how can they any longer be
Bishops, if they were ordained by persons
whom they accuse of heresy 7? But if their
sentiments were wrong and their writings se- \
2 [Cf. sup: pp. 237, 267.] 3 Supr. § 5, note i.
4 On the word 'Apeioiaavtrai, Gibbon observes, ' The ordinary
appellation with which Athanasius and his followers chose to com-
pliment the Arians, was that of Ariomanites,' ch. xxi. note 6i.
Rather, the name originally was a state title, injoined by Constan-
tine, vid. Petav. de Trin. i. 8 fin. Naz. Orat. p. 794. note e. [Pe-
tavius states this, but without proof.] Several meanings are implied
in this title ; the real reason for it was the fanatical fury with which
it spread and maintained itself; and hence the strange paronomasia
of Constantine, "Apes apeie, with an allusion to Horn. //. v. 31.
A second reason, or rather sense, of the appellation was that, deny-
ing the Word, they have forfeited the gift of reason, e.g. Tuyv
'ApeiOfiavtTUV rriv dXoyCav. de Sent. Dion. init. 24 fin. 0}-at. ii.
§ 32, iii. § 63. [The note, which is here much condensed, gives
profuse illustrations of this figure of speech.]
5 Vid. supr. pp. 152, 74.
6 ojs ij9e'Arj<rev. vid. also de Deer. § 3. ws i\9tKT]iTa.v . ad Ep.
Mg. 5. 7 § 5. note I.
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA.
457
(lucecl the world, then let their memory perish
altogether ; when, however, you cast out their
books, go and cast out their remains too from
the cemeteries, so that one and all may know
that they are seducers, and that you are parri-
cides.
14. The blessed Apostle approves of the
Corinthians because, he says, 'ye remember
me in all things, and keep the traditions as
I delivered them to you' (i Cor. xi. 2); but
they, as entertaining such views of their pre-
decessors, will have the daring to say just the
reverse to their flocks : ' We praise you not for
remembering your fathers, but rather we make
much of you, when you hold not their tradi-
tions.' And let them go on to accuse their
own unfortunate birth, and say, ' We are
sprung not of religious men but of heretics.'
For such language, as I said .before, is con-
sistent in those who barter their Fathers' fame
and their own salvation for Arianism, and fear
not the words of the divine proverb, ' There is
a generation that curseth their father' (Prov.
XXX. II ; Ex. xxi. 17), and the threat lying in
the Law against such. They then, from zeal for
the heresy, are of this obstinate temper ; you,
however, be not troubled at it, nor take their
audacity for truth. For they dissent from
each other, and, whereas they have revolted
from their Fathers, are not of one and the
same mind, but float about with various and
discordant changes. And, as quarrelling with
the Council of Nicaea, they have held many
Councils themselves, and have published a
faith in each of them, and have stood to
none^, nay, they will never do otherwise, for
perversely seeking, they will never find that
Wisdom which they hate. I have accordingly
subjoined portions both of Arius's writings
and of whatever else I could collect, of their
publications in different Councils ; whereby
you will learn to your surprise with what
object they stand out against an Ecumeni-
cal Council and their own Fathers without
blushing.
PART 11.
History of Arian opinions.
Arius's own sentiments ; his Thalia and Letter to
S. Alexander; corrections by Eusebius and others;
extracts from the works of Asterius ; letter of the
Council of Jerusalem ; first Creed of Arians at the
Dedication of Antioch ; second, Lucian's on the same
occasion ; third, by Theophronius ; fourth, sent to
Constans in Gaul ; fifth, the Macrostich sent into
Italy ; sixth, at Sirmium ; seventh, at the same place;
and eighth also, as given above in § 8 ; ninth,
at Seleucia; tenth, at Constantinople; eleventh, at
Antioch.
15. Arius and those with him thought and
professed thus : ' God made the Son out of no-
thing, and called Him His Son ; ' ' The Word
of God is one of the creatures ; ' and ' Once
He was not ; ' and ' He is alterable ; capable,
when it is His Will, of altering.' Accordingly
they were expelled from the Church by the
blessed Alexander. However, after his ex-
pulsion, when he was with Eusebius and
his fellows, he drew up his heresy upon
paper, and imitating in the Thalia no grave
writer, but the Egyptian Sotades, in the dis-
solute tone of his metre % he writes at great
length, for instance as follows : —
Blasphemies of Arius.
God Himself then, in His own nature, is ineffable by
all men. Equal or like Himself He alone has none, or
one in glory. And Ingenerate we call Him, because of
Him who is generate by nature. We praise Him as
vvitliout beginning because of Him who has a beginning.
And adore Him as everlasting, because of Him who in
time has come to be. The Unbegim made the Son
a beginning of things originated ; and advanced Him
as a Son to Himself by adoption. He has nothing
proper to God in proper subsistence. For He is not
equal, no, nor one in essence^ with Him. Wise is God,
for He is the teacher of Wisdom 3. There is full proof
that God is invisible to all beings ; both to things which
are through the Son, and to the Son He is invisible.
I will say it expressly, how by the Son is seen the
Invisible; by that power by which God sees, and in
His own measure, the Son endures to see the Father,
as is lawful. Thus there is a Triad, not in equal glories.
Not intermingling with each other'' are their subsistences.
One more glorious than the other in their glories unto
immensity. Foreign from the Son in essence is the
Father, for He is without beginning. Understand that
tlie Monad was ; but the Dyad was not, before it was
in existence. It follows at once that, though the Son
was not, the Father was God. Hence the Son, not
being (for He existed at the will of the Father), is God
Only-begotten'''', and He is alien from either. Wisdom
existed as Wisdom by the will of the Wise God.
1 Cf. Orat. i. §§ 2—5 ; de Sent. D. 6 ; Socr. i. 9. The Arian
Philostorgius tells us that ' Arius wrote songs for the sea and for
the mill and for the road, and then set ihem to suitable music,'
Hist. ii. 2. It is remarkable that Athanasius should say the
Egyptian Sotades, and again in Sent. £>. 6. There were two
Poets of the name; one a writer of the Middle Comedy, A t/ien.
Deipn. vii. 11 ; but the other, who is here spoken of, was a native
of Maronea in Crete, according to Suidas (in voc), under the
successors of Alexander, At/ten. xiv. 4. He wrote in ionic metre,
which was of infamous name from the subjects to which he and
others applied it. vid. Suit/, ibid. Horace's Ode, ' Miserarum est
neque amori, &c.' is a specimen of this metre, and some have called
it Sotadic ; but Bentley shews in loc. that Sotades wrote in the
Ionic a majore. Athenasus implies that all Ionic metres were
called Sotadic, or that Sotades wrote in various Ionic metres.
The Church adopted the Doric music, and forbade the Ionic
and Lydian. The name 'Thalia' commonly Ijelonged to con-
vivial songs; Martial contrasts the ' lasciva Thalia' with ' car-
mina sanctiora,' Epigr. vii. 17. vid. Thaliarchus, ' the master of
the feast,' Horat. Od. i. g. [The metre of the fragments of the
' Thalia ' is obscure, there are no traces of the Ionic foot, but very
distinct anapjestic cadences. In fact the lines resemble ill-con-
striicted or very corrupt anapaestic tetrameters catalectic, as in
a comic Parabasis. For Sotades, the Greek text here reads cor-
ruptly Sosates.]
2 This passage ought to have been added supr. p. 163, note 8,
as containing a more direct denial of the o/uooiiaioi'.
3 That is. Wisdom, or the Son, is but the disciple of Him who
is Wise, and not the attribute by which He is Wise, which is what
the Sabellians said, vid. Orat. iv. § 2, and what Arius imputed to
the Church.
4 ai/67ri/iiiKToi, that is, he denied the ir€ptx<i>pT)cri5, vid. supr.
Orat. iii. 3, &c.
4' [John i. 18, best MSS., and cf. Hort, Two Diss. p. 26.
458
DE SYNODIS.
Hence He is conceived in numberless conceptions^ :
Spirit, Power, Wisdom, God's glory, Truth, Image,
and Word, tjnderstand that He is conceived to be
Radiance and Light. One equal to the Son, the
Superior is able to beget ; but one more excellent, or
superior, or greater. He is not able. At God's will the
Son is what and whatsoever He is. And when and
since He was, from that time He has subsisted from
God. He, being a strong God, praises in His degree
the Superior. To speak in brief, God is ineffable to
His Son. For He is to Himself what He is, that is,
unspeakable. So that nothing which is called compre-
hensible* does the Son know to speak about ; for it is
impossible for Him to investigate the Father, who is
by Himself. For the Son does not know His own es-
sence. For, being Son, He really existed, at the will
of the Father. What argument then allows, that He
who is from the Father should know His own parent
by comprehension ? For it is plain that for that which
hath a beginning to conceive how the Unbegun is, or
to grasp the idea, is not possible.
1 6. And what they wrote by letter to the
blessed Alexander, the Bishop, runs as fol-
lows : —
To Our Blessed Pope ? and Bishop, Akxatider,
the Presbyters and Deacons send health in the
Loi'd.
Our faith from our forefathers, which also we have
learned from thee. Blessed Pope, is this : — We acknow-
ledge One God, alone Ingenerate, alone Everlasting,
alone Unbegun, alone True, alone having Immortality,
alone Wise, alone Good, alone Sovereign ; Judge,
Governor, and Providence of all, unalterable and un-
changeable, just and good, God of Law and Prophets
and New Testament ; who begat an Only-begotten Son
before eternal times, through whom He has made both
the ages and the universe ; and begat Him, not in
semblance, but in truth ; and that He made Him subsist
at His own will, unalterable and unchangeable ; perfect
creature of God, but not as one of the creatures ;
offspring, but not as one of things begotten; nor as
Valentinus pronounced that the offspring of the Father
was an issue ^ ; nor as Manichseus taught that the off-
spring was a portion of the Father, one in essence ' ; or
as Sabellius, dividing the Monad, speaks of a Son-and-
Father'°; nor as Hieracas, of one torch from another,
5 cjrti/oiais, that is, our Lord's titles are but natnes, O'c figures,
not properly belonging to Him, but [cf. Bigg. B.L. p. 168 sq.^
6 Kara KaTa\ri\j/i.v, that is, there is nothing comprehensible in
the Father for the Son to know and declare. On the other hand
the doctrine of the Anomoeans was, that all men could know
Almighty God perfectly.
7 LThe ordinary title of eminent bishops, especially of the bishop
of Alexandria.]
** What the Valentinian Trpo/SoXr; was is described in Epiph.
Hter. 31, 13 [but see D.C.B. iv. 1086 sgq.'\ Origen protests against
the notion of Trpo;8oA^, Periarch. iv. p. 190, and Athanasius £jrz>oj.
§ I. The Arian Asterius too considers irpo/SoArj to introduce the
notion of re/ci'oyoi'ia, Euseb. contr. Marc. i. 4. p. 20. vid. also
Epiph. HcEr. 72. 7. Yet Eusebius uses the word TrpopdWcaOai.
£ccl. Theol. i. 8. On the other hand TertuUian uses it with
a protest against the Valentinian sense. Justin has npop\rj6ev
■yeVfrj/ixa, Tryph. 62. And Nazianzen calls the Almighty Father
5rpo/3oAevs of the Holy Spirit. Orat. 29. 2. Arius introduces the
word here as an argumentum ad invidiatn. Hil. de Trin. vi. 9.
9 The Manichees adopting a material notion of the divine sub-
stance, considered that it was divisible, and that a portion of it was
absorbed by the power of darkness.
'o uioTTttTopa. The term is ascribed to Sabellius, Ammon. in
Caien.Joait.i.i.'gi. 14: to Sabellius and [invidiously to] Marcellus,
Euseb. £ccl. Thcol. ii. 5 : Cf.,as to Marcellus, Cyr. Hier. Catech.
XV. 9. also iv. 8. xi. 16; Epiph. Hcer 73. 11 fin. : to Sabellians,
Athan. Expos. Fid. 2. and 7, and Greg. Nyssen. contr. Eun. xii. p.
733 : to certain heretics, Cyril. Alex, in Joann. p. 243 : to Praxeas
and Montanus, Mar. Merc. p. 128 : to Sabellius, Cjesar. Dial. i.
p. S50 : to Noetus, Damasc. Ha:r. 57.
or as a lamp divided into two " ; nor that He who was
before, was afterwards generated or new-created into
a Son ", as thou too thyself. Blessed Pope, in the midst
of the Church and in session hast often condemned ;
but, as we say, at the will of God, created before
times and before ages, and gaining life and being from
the Father, who gave subsistence to His glories together
with Him. For the Father did not, in giving to Him
the inheritance of all things, deprive Himself of what
He has ingenerately in Himself ; for He is the Fountaia
of all things. Thus there are Three Subsistences. And
God, being the cause of all things, is Unbegun and
altogether Sole, but the Son being begotten apart from
time by the Father, and being created and founded
before ages, was not before His generation, but being
begotten apart from time before all things, alone was
made to subsist by the Father. For He is not eternal
or co-eternal or co-unoriginate with the Father, nor has
He His being together with the Father, as some speak
of relations ', introducing two ingenerate beginnings, but
God is before all things as being Monad and Beginning
of all. Wherefore also He is before the Son ; as we
have learned also from thy preaching in the midst of the
Church. So far then as from God He has being, and
glories, and life, and all things are delivered unto Him,
in such sense is God His origin. For He is above Him,
as being His God and befdre Him. But if the terms
' from Him,' and ' from the womb,' and ' I came forth from
the Father, and I am come^' (Rom. xi. 36; Ps. ex. 3 ;
John xvi. 28), be understood by some to mean as if
a part of Him, one in essence or as an issue, then the
Father is according to them compounded and divisible
and. alterable and material, and, as far as their belief
goes, has the circumstances ■ of a body. Who is the
Incorporeal God.
This is a part of what Arius and his fellows
vomited from their heretical hearts.
17. And before the Nicene Council took
place, similar statements were made by Euse-
bius and his fellows, Narcissus, Patrophilus,
Maris, Pauhnus, Theodotus, and Athanasius
of [Ajnazarba 3. And Eusebius of Nicomedia
" [On Hieracas, see D.C.B. iii. 24; also Epiph. Har. tTy
Hil. Trin. vi. 12.]
12 Bull considers that the doctrine of such Fathers is here
spoken of as held that our Lord's auyicara^ao-ts to create the world
was a yeVi^o-ts, and certainly such language as that of HippoU
contr. Noet. § 15. favours the supposition. But one class of [Mo-
narchians] may more probably be intended, who held that the
Word became the Son upon His incarnation, such as Marcellus,^
vid. Euseb. Eccles. Theol. i. i. contr. Marc. ii. 3. vid. also Eccles.
Theol. ii. 9. p. 114 b. [x-r\h' oMore a.k\i\v k.t.K. Also the Macros-
tich says, 'We anathematize those who call Him the mere Word
of God, not allowmg Him to be Christ and Son of God before
all ages, but from the time He look on Him our flesh : such are
the followers of Marcellus and Phot,inus, &c.' in/r. § 26. Agam,
Athanasius, Orat. iv. 15, says that, of those who divide the Word
from the Son, some called our Lord's manhood the Son, some
the two Natures together, and some said ' that the Word Himself
became the Son when He was made man." It makes it more likely
that Marcellus is meant, that Asterius seems to have written
against him before the Nicene Council, and that Arius in other
of his writings borrowed from Asterius. vid. de Decret. § 8.
1 Eusel)ius's letter to Euphration, which is mentioned just after,
expresses this more distinctly—' If they coexist, how shall the
Father be Father and the Son Son? or how the One first, the
Other second? and the One ingenerate and the other generate?"
Acta Cone. 7. p. 301. The phrase rd Trpos ti Bull well explains to
refer to the Catholic truth that the Father or Son being named;
the Other is therein implied without naming. Defens. F. N. iii. 9.
§ 4. Hence Arius, in his Letter to Eusebius, complains that
Alexander says, a.ii b Seos, ael 6 vios" o/xa Trai-^p, ajAavios. Theod.
If. £. i. 4.
2 Tjico), and so Chrys. Horn. 3. Ifedr. init. Epiph. //cer. 73. 31,
and 36.
3 Most of these original Arians were attacked in a work of
Marcellus's which Eusebius answers. 'Now he replies to As-
terius,' says Eusebius, ' now to the great Eusebius ' [of Nico-
media], ' and then he turns upon that man of God, that indeed
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA.
459
wrote over and above to Arius, to this effect,
' Since your sentiments are good, pray that all
may adopt them ; for it is plain to any one,
that what has been made was not before its
origination ; but what came to be has a be-
ginning of being.' And Eusebius of Caesarea
in Palestine, in a letter to Euphration the
Bishop 3", did not scruple to say plainly that
Christ was not true Godl And Athanasius
of [Ajnazarba uncloked the heresy still further,
saying that the Son of God was one of the
hundred sheep. For writing to Alexander the
Bishop, he had the extreme audacity to say :
'Why complain of Arius and his fellows, for say-
ing. The Son of God is made as a creature out
of nothing, and one among others ? For all
that are made being represented in parable by
the hundred sheep, the Son is one of them. If
then the hundred are not created and origin-
ate, or if there be beings beside that hundred,
then may the Son be not a creature nor one
among others ; but if those hundred are all
originate, and there is nothing besides the hun-
dred save God alone, what absurdity do Arius
and his fellows utter, when, as comprehending
and reckoning Christ in the hundred, they say
that He is one among others ? ' And George
who now is in Laodicea, and then was presby-
ter of Alexandria, and was staying at Antioch,
wrote to Alexander the Bishop ; ' Do not com-
plain of Arius and his fellows, for saying, "Once
the Son of God was not," for Isaiah came to be
son of Amos, and, whereas Amos was before
Isaiah came to be, Isaiah was not before, but
came to be afterwards.' And he wrote to the
Arians, ' Why complain of Alexander the Pope,
saying, that the Son is from the Father? for
you too need not fear to say that the Son was
from God. For if the Apostle wrote (i Cor.
xi, 12), 'All things are from God,' and it is
plain that all things are made of nothing,
though the Son too is a creature and one of
things made, still He may be said to be from
God in that sense in which all things are said
to be 'from God.' From him then those who
hold with Arius learned to simulate the phrase
'from God,' and to use it indeed, but not in
a good meaning. And George himself was de-
posed by Alexander for certain reasons, and
among them for manifest irreligion ; for he was
himself a presbyter, as has been said before.
thrice blessed person Paulinus [of Tyre]. Then he goes to war
with Origeii. . . . Next he marches out against Narcissus, and
pursues the other Eusebius,' [himself]. ' In a word, he counts for
nothing all the Ecclesiastical Fathers, being satisfied with no
one but himself.' totttr. Marc. i. 4. [On Maris (who was not at
Ariminum, and scarcely at Antioch in 363) see D.C.B. s.v. (2). On
Theodotus see vol. i. of this series, p. 320, note 37. On Paulinus,
ib. p. 369.]
a* [Of Balanea:, see Ap. Fug. 3 ; Hist. Ar. 5.]
4 Quuted, among other passages from Eusebius, in the 7th
General Council, Act. 6. p. 409' [Mansi. xiii. 701 D]. 'The Son
Himself is God, but not Very God.' [But see Prolegg. ubi stifr.
note 5].
18. On the whole then such were their
statements, as if they all were in dispute and
rivalry with each other, which should make
the heresy more irreligious, and display it in
a more naked form. And as for their letters
I had them not at hand, to dispatch them to
you ; else I would have sent you copies ; but,
if the Lord will, this too I will do, when I get
possession of them. And one Asterius s from
Cappadocia, a many-headed Sophist, one of
the fellows of Eusebius, whom they could not
advance into the Clergy, as having done sacri-
fice in the former persecution in the time of
Constantius's grandfather, writes, with the
countenance of Eusebius and his fellows, a
small treatise, which was on a par with the
crime of his sacrifice, yet answered their
wishes ; for in it, after comparing, or rather
preferring, the locust and the caterpillar to
Christ, and saying that Wisdom in God was
other than Christ, and was the Framer as
well of Christ as of the world, he went
round the Churches in Syria and elsewhere,
with introductions from Eusebius and his
fellows, that as he once made trial of denying,
so now he might boldly oppose the truth.
The bold man intruded himself into forbidden
places, and seating himself in the place of
Clergy ^, he used to read publicly this treatise
of his, in spite of the general indignation.
The treatise is written at great length, but
portions of it are as follows : —
For the Blessed Paul said not that he preached
Christ, His, that is, God's, 'own Power' or 'Wis-
dom,' but without the article, ' God's Power and God's
Wisdom' (i Cor i. 24), preaching tliat the own
power of God Himself was distinct, which was con-
natural and co-existent with Him unoriginately, gener-
ative indeed of Christ, creative of the whole world ;
concerning which he teaches in his Epistle to the Romans,
thus, 'The invisible things of Him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things which are made, even His eternal power and
divinity' (Rom. i. 20). For as no one would say that
the Deity there mentioned was Christ, but the
Father Himself, so, as I think. His eternal power is
also not the Only-begotten God (Joh. i. 18), but the
Father who begat Him. And he tells us of another
Power and Wisdom of God, namely, that which is
manifested through Christ, and made known through
the works themselves of His Ministry.
And again : —
Although His eternal Power and Wisdom, which
5 Asterius has been mentioned above, p. 155, note 2, &c. Philos-
torgius speaks of him as adopting Semi-Arian terms; and Acacius
gives an extract from him containing them, ap. Epiph. Hcer. 72. 6.
He seems to be called many-headed with an allusion to the Hydra,
and to his activity in the Arian cause and his fertility in writing.
He wrote comments on Scripture. [See Prolegg. ii. § 3 (2) a,
sub. fin.\
6 None but the clergy might enter the Chancel, i.e. in Service
time. Hence Theodosius was made to retire by S. Ambrose.
Theod. V. 17. The Council of Laodicea, said 10 be held a.d. ^72,
forbids any but persons in orders, iepariicoi, to enter the Chancel
and then communicate. Can. 19. vid. also 44. Cone. t. i. pp. 788,
789. It is doubtful what orders the word ieparifcoi is intended to
include, vid. Bingham, Antiqu. viii. 6. § 7.
460
DE SYNODIS.
truth argues to be Unbegun and Ingenerate, would
appear certainly to be one and the same, yet many are
those powers which are one by one created by Him, of
which Christ is the First-born and Only-begotten. All
however equally depend upon their Possessor, and all
His powers are rightly called His, who created and
uses them ; for instance, the Prophet says that the
locust, which became a divine punishment of human
sin, was called by God Himself, not only a power of
God, but a great power (Joel ii. 25). And the blessed
David too in several of the Psalms, invites, not Angels
alone, but Powers also to praise God. And while he
invites them all to the hymn, he presents before us their
multitude, and is not unwilling to call them ministers of
God, and teaches them to do His will.
19. These bold words against the Saviour
did not content him, but he went further in
his blasphemies, as follows :
The Son is one among others ; for He is first of things
originate, and one among intellectual natures ; and as
in things visible the sun is one among phenomena, and
it shines upon the whole world according to the com-
mand of its Maker, so the Son, being one of the
intellectual natures, also enlightens and shines upon all
that are in the intellectual world.
And again he says, Once He was not,
writing thus : — ' And before the Son's origin-
ation, the Father had pre-existing knowledge
how to generate ; since a physician too, before
he cured, had the science of curing 7.' And
he says again : 'The Son was created by
God's beneficent earnestness ; and the Father
made Him by the superabundance of His
Power.' And again : ' If the will of God has
pervaded all the works in succession, certainly
the Son too, being a work, has at His will
come to be and been made.' Now though
Asterius was the only person to write all this,
Eusebius and his fellows felt the like in com-
mon with him.
20. These are the doctrines for which they
are contending; for these they assail the an-
cient Council, because its niembers did not
propound the like, but anathematized the Arian
heresy instead, which they were so eager to
recommend. This was why they put forward,
as an advocate of their irreligion, Asterius who
sacrificed, a sophist too, that he might not
spare to speak against the Lord, or by a show
of reason to mislead the simple. And they
were ignorant, the shallow men, that they were
doing harm to their own cause. For the ill
savour of their advocate's idolatrous sacrifice
betrayed still more plainly that the heresy is
Christ's foe. And now again, the general
agitations and troubles which they are ex-
citing, are in consequence of their belief, that
by their numerous murders and their monthly
Councils, at length they will undo the sentence
which has been passed against the Arian
heresy ^ But here too they seem ignorant, or
7 Ep. Mg. 13.
8 Vid. infr. § 32.
to pretend ignorance, that even before Nicasa,
that heresy was held in detestation, when
xirtemas 9 was laying its foundations, and be-
fore him Caiaphas's assembly and that of the
Pharisees his contemporaries. And at all times
is this gang of Christ's foes detestable, and
will not cease to be hateful, the Lord's Name
being full of love, and the whole creation
bending the knee, and confessing ' that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father'
(Phil. ii. 11).
21. Yet so it is, they have convened succes-
sive Councils against that Ecumenical One,
and are not yet tired. After the Nicene, Eu-
sebius and his fellows had been deposed ;
however, in course of time they intruded them-
selves without shame upon the Churches, and
began to plot against the Bishops who with-
stood them, and to substitute in the Church
men of their own heresy. Thus they thought
to hold Councils at their pleasure, as having
those who concurred with them, whom they
had ordained on purpose for this very object.
Accordingly, they assemble at Jerusalem, and
there they write thus : —
The Holy Council assembled in Jerusalem ' by the
grace of God, &c their orthodox teaching in
writing % which we all confessed to be sound and eccle-
siastical. And he reasonably recommended that they
should be received and united to the Church of God, as
you will know yourselves from the transcript of the
same Epistle, which we have transmitted to your reve-
rences. We believe that yourselves also, as if recovering
the very members of your own body, will experience
great joy and gladness, in acknowledging and recovering
your own bowels, your own brethren and lathers ; since
not only the Presbyters, Arius and his fellows, are given
back to you, but also the whole Christian people and
the entire multitude, which on occasion of the aforesaid
men have a long time been in dissension among you.
Moreover it were fitting, now that you know for certain
what has passed, and that the men have communicated
with us and have been received by so great a Holy
Council, that you should with all readiness hail this your
coalition and peace with your own members, specially
since the articles of the faith which they have published
presei^ve indisputable the universally confessed aposto-
lical tradition and teaching.
22. This was the beginning of their Councils,
and in it they were speedy in divulging their
views, and could not conceal them. For when
they said that they had banished all jealousy,
and, after the expulsion of Athanasius, Bishop
of Alexandria, recommended the reception of
Arius and his friends, they shewed that their
measures against Athanasius himself then, and
before against all the other Bishops who with-
stood them, had for their object their receiving
9 [On Artemas or Artemon and Theodotus, see Prolegg. ii.
§ 3 (2) a.]
1 [See ApQl. Ar. 84 ; Hist. Ar. i ; Prulegg. ii. § 5. The first
part of the letter will be found supr. AJioi. Ar. p. 144.]
2 This is supposed to be the same Confession which is pre-
served by Socr. i. 26. and Soz. ii. 27. and was presented to Con-
stantine by Arius in 330.
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA.
461
Arius and his fellows, and introducing the
heresy into the Church. But although they
had approved in this Council all Arius's malig-
nity, and had ordered to receive his party into
communion, as they had set the example, yet
feeling that even now they were short of their
wishes, they assembled a Council at Antioch
under colour of the so-called Dedication 3 j
and, since they were in general and lasting
odium for their heresy, they publish different
letters, some of this sort, and some of that ;
and what they wrote in one letter was as
follows : —
We have not been followers of Arius, — how could
Bishops, such as we, follow a Presbyter? — nor did we
receive any other faith beside that which has been
handed down from the beginning. But, after taking
on ourselves to examine and to verify his faith, we
admitted him rather than followed him ; as you will
understand from our present avowals.
For we have been taught from the first, to believe^ in
one God, the God of the Universe, the Framer and
Preserver of all things both intellectual and sensible.
And in One Son of God, Only-begotten, who existed
before all ages, and was with the Father who had
begotten Him, by whom all things were made, both
visible and invisible, who in the last days according to
the good pleasure of the Father came down ; and has
taken flesh of the Virgin, and jointly fulfilled all His
Father's will, and suffered and risen again, and
ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand
of the Father, and cometh again to judge quick and
dead, and remaineth King and God unto all ages.
And we believe also in the Holy Ghost ; and if it be
necessary to add, we believe concerning the resurrection
of the flesh, and the life everlasting.
23. Here follows what they pubHshed next
at the same Dedication in another Epistle,
being dissatisfied with the first, and devising
something newer and fuller :
We believe s, conformably to the evangelical and
apostolical tradition, in One God, the Father Almighty,
the Framer, and Maker, and Provider of the Universe,
from whom are all things.
And in One I.ord Jesus Christ, His Son, Only-begotten
God (Joh. i. 18), by whom are all things, who was begot-
ten before all ages from the Father, God from God, whole
from whole, sole from sole*, perfect from perfect, King
from King, Lord from Lord, Living Word, Living Wis-
dom, true Light, Way, Truth, Resurrection, Shepherd,
Door, both unalterable and ^ unchangeable ; exact
Image ' of the Godhead, Essence, Will, Power and
3 [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 6 (2).]
4 ist Confession or ist of Antioch. A.D. 341. [See Socr. ii. 10.]
5 2nd Confession or 2nd of Antioch, a.d. 341. This formulary
is that l<nown as the Formulary of the Dedication. It is quoted
as such by Socr. ii. 39, 40. Soz. iv. 15. and itifr. § 29. _ [On its
attribution to Lucian, see Prolegg. ubisupr., and Caspar! ^//?. u.
Neue Q. p. 42 note.] 6 Vid. loth Confession, infr. § 30.
7 These strong words and those which follow, whether Lucian's
or not, mark the great difference between this confession and the
foregoing. The words 'unalterable and unchangeable' are formal
anti-Arian symbols, as the rpeTrxbi/ or alterable was one of the
most characteristic parts of Arius's creed, vid. Oral. i. § 35, &c.
' On dirapaAAaxTOS ei/cwf nar ova-iav, which was synonymous
with 6/j.o(.ovcrio«, vid. i/i/f- § 38. su/r. p. 163, note 9. It was in
order to secure the true sense of airapoAAoucTov that the Council
adopted the word 6/u.oou<riov. 'ATrapoAAoucT-oi' is accordingly used
as a famili.nr word by Athan. tie Deer. §§ 20, 24. Orat. iii.
§ 36. contr. Gent. 41. 46. fin. Philostorgius ascribing it to As-
terius, and Acacius quotes a passage from his writings containing
Glory of the Father ; the fust born of every creature,
who was in the beginning with God, God the Word, as
it is vmtten in the Gospel, 'and the Word was God'
(John i. i) ; by whom all things were made, and m
whom all things consist ; who in the last days de-
scended from above, and was born of a Virgin according
to the Scriptures, and was made Man, Mediator '^ be-
tween God and man, and Apostle of our faith, and
Prince of life, as He says, • I came down from heaven,
not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent
Me ' (John vi. 38) ; who suffered for us and rose again
on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sat down
on the right hand of the Father, and is coming again
with glory and power, to judge quick and dead.
And in the Holy Ghost, who is given to those who
believe for comfort, and sanctification, and initiation, as
also our Lord Jesus Christ enjoined His disciples, say-
ing, ' Go ye, teach all nations, baptizing them in the
Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost '
(Matt, xxviii. 19) ; namely of a Father who is truly
Father, and a Son who is truly Son, and of the Holy
Ghost who is truly Holy Ghost, the names not being
given w ithout meaning or effect, but denoting accurately
the peculiar subsistence, rank, and glory of each that
is named, so that they are three in subsistence, and in
agreement one 3.
Holding then this faith, and holding it in the presence
of God and Christ, from begnining to end, we anathe-
matize every heretical heterodoxy ^. And if any teaches,
beside the sound and right faith of the Scriptures, that
time, or season, or ageS, either is or has been before
the generation of the Son, be he anathema. Or if any
one says, that the Son is a creature as one of the crea-
tures, or an offspring as one of the offsprings, or a work
as one of the works, and not the aforesaid articles one
after another, as the divine Scriptures have delivered, or
if he teaches or preaches beside what we received,
be he anathema. For all that has been delivered in the
divine Scriptures, whether by Prophets or Apostles, do
we truly and reverentially both believe and follow *.
. 24. And one Theophronius 7, Bishop of
Tyana, put forth before them all the following
statement of his personal faith. And they
subscribed it, accepting the faith of this
man : —
God ^ knows, whom I call as a witness upon my soul,
that so I believe: — in God the Father Almighty, the
Creator and Maker of the Universe, from whom are all
things .
And in His Only-begotten Son, Word, Power, and
Wisdom, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all
things ; who has been begotten from the Father before
the ages, perfect God from perfect God 5, and was with
it ; cf. S.Alexander ttJv (cara jravra o\j.oi6Tr\Ta. avrou eic </)u<rca)s
an-ojxogaMei'os, in Theod. //.£■. i. 4. XapaKTrjp, Hebr. i. 3. con-
tains the same idea. Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 18.
2 This statement perhaps is the most Catholic in the Creed ;
not that the former are not more explicit in themselves, or that in
a certain true sense our Lord may not be called a Mediator before
He became incarnate, but because the Arians, even Eusebius, like
Pliilo and the Platonists, consider Him as made in the beginning
the ' Eternal Priest of the Father,' Demonst. v. 3. de Laud. C.
3, II, ' an intermediate divine power,' §§ 26, 27, and notes.
3 On this phrase, which is justified by S. Hilary, de Syn. 32,
and is protested .igainst in the Sardican Confession, Theod. H.E.
ii. 6 [see Prolegg. iibi supr^
4 The whole of these anathemas are [a compromise]. The
Council anathematizes ' every heretical heterodoxy ;* not, as
Athanasius observes, supr., § 7, the Arian.
5 Our Lord was, as they held, before time, but still created.
6 This emphatic mention of Scripture is also virtually an Arian
evasion, admitting of a silent reference to themselves as inter-
preters of Scripture. 7 On this Creed see Prolegg. vbi supr.
" 3rd Confession or 3rd of Antioch, ad. 341.
9 It need scarcely be said, that 'perfect from perfect' !s 1
i symbol on which the Catholics laid stress, Athan. Orat. li. 35.
462
DE SYNODIS.
God in subsistence, and in the last days descended, and
was born of the Virgin according to the Scriptures, and
was made man, and suffered, and rose again from the
dead, and ascended into the heavens, and sat down on
the right hand of His Father, and cometh again with
glory and power to judge quick and dead, and remain-
eth for ever :
And in the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the Spirit of
tnith (Joh. XV. 26), which also God promised by His
Prophet to pour out (Joel ii. 28) upon His servants, and
the Lord promised to send to His disciples : which also
He sent, as the Acts of the Apostles witness.
But if any one teaches, or holds in his mind, aught
beside this faith, be he anathema ; or with Marcellus of
Ancyra", or Sabellius, or Paul of Samosata, be he
anathema, both himself and those who communicate with
him.
25. Ninety Bishops met at the Dedication
under the Consulate of MarceUinus and Pro-
binus, in the 14th of the Indiction^, Constan-
tius the most irreHgious being present. Hav-
ing thus conducted matters at Antioch at the
Dedication, thinking that their composition
was deficient still, and fluctuating moreover in
their own opinions, again they draw up afresh
another formulary, alter a few months, pro-
fessedly concerning the faith, and despatch
Narcissus, Maris, Theodoras, and Mark into
Gaul=^. And they, as being sent from the
Council, deliver the following document to
Constans Augustus of blessed memory, and to
all who were there :
We believes in One God, the Father Almighty,
Creator and Maker of all things ; from whom all fa-
therhood in heaven and on earth is named. (Eph.
iii. 15.)
And in His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus
Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the
Epiph. Hcer. 76. p. 045. but it admitted of an evasion. An espe-
cial reason for insisting on it in the previous centuries had been
the Sabellian doctrine, which considered the title ' Word ' when
applied to our Lord to be adequately explained by the ordinary
sense of the term, as a word spoken by us. In consequence they
insisted on His to tiXnov, perfection, which became almost
synonymous with His personality. (Thus the Apollinarians, e.g.
denied that our Lord was perfect man, because His person was
not human. Athan. contr. Apoll. i. 2.) And Athan. condemns
the notion of ' the Aoyos kv to! Seu dreXris, yei'i'7)Sels Tc'Aeios, Orat.
iv. II. The Arians then, as being the especial opponents of the
Sabellians, insisted on nothing so much as our Lord's being a real,
living, substantial. Word, vid- Eusebiusj>a«2?«. 'The Father,'
says Acacius against Marcellus, ' begat the Only-begotten, alone
alone, and perfect perfect ; for there is nothing imperfect in the
Father, wherefore neither is there in the Son, but the Son s per-
fection is the genuine offspring of His perfection, and superper-
fection.' ap. Epiph. Har. 72. 7. Te'Aeios then was a relative
word, varynig with the subject matter, vid. Damasc. F. O. i. 8.
p. 138. and wlnen the Arians said that our Lord was perfect God,
they meant, ' perfect, in that sense in which He is God' — i.e. as
a secondary divinity. — Nay, in one point of view, holding as they
did no real condescension or assumption of a really new state, they
would use the term of His divine Nature more freely than the
Catholics sometimes had. ' Nor was the Word,' says Hippolytus,
' before the flesh and by Himself, perfect Son, though being perfect
Word, Only-begotten ; nor could the flesh subsist by itself without
the Word, because that in the Word it has its consistence : thus
then He was manifested One perfect Son of God.' contr. Noet. 15.
10 [See Prolegg.] Marcellus wrote his work against Asterius
in 335, the year of the Arian Council of Jerusalem, which at once
took cognisance of it, and cited Marcellus to appear before them.
The next year a Council held at Constantinople condemned and
deposed him. i a.d. 341.
2 [Cf. Prolpgg. ii. § 6 (3) itiit.']
3 4th Confession, or 4th of Antioch, A.D. 342. The fourth,
fifth, and .sixth Confessions are the same, and with them agree the
Creed of Philippopolis [a.d. 343, see Gwatkin, Sttid. p<ii9, espec.
note 2].
Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all
things were made in the heavens and on the earth,
visible and invisible, being Word, and Wisdom, and
Power, and Life, and True Light ; who in the last days
was made man for us, and was born of the Holy Virgin ;
who was crucified, and dead, and buried, and rose again
from the dead the third day, and was taken up into
heaven, and sat down on the riglit hand of the Father ;
and is coming at the consummation of the age, to judge
quick and dead, and to render to every one according
to his works ; whose Kingdom endures indissolubly
into the infinite ages*; for He shall be seated on the
right hand of the Father, not only in this age but in
that which is to come.
And in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete ; which,
having promised to the Apostles, He sent forth after
His ascension into heaven, to teach them and to remind
of all things ; through whom also shall be sanctified the
souls of those who sincerely believe in Him.
But those who say, that the Son was from nothing,
or from other subsistence and not from God, and, there
was time when He was not, the Catholic Church re-
gards as aliens 5.
26. As if dissatisfied with this, they hold
their meeting again after three years, and dis-
patch Eudoxius, Martyrius, and Macedonius
of Cilicia ^, and some others with them, to the
parts of Italy, to carry with them a faith
written at great length, with numerous addi-
tions over and above those which have gone
before. They went abroad with these, as if
they had devised something new.
We believe ^ in one God the Father Almighty, the
Creator and Maker of all things, from whom all father-
hood in heaven and on earth is named.
And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ,
who before ali ages was begotten from the Father, God
from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were
made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible,
being Word and Wisdom and Power and Life and True
Light, who in the last days was made man for us, and
was born of the Holy Virgin, crucified and dead and
buried, and rose again from the dead the third day, and
was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the right
hand of the Father, and is coming at the consummation
of the age to judge quick and dead, and to render to
every one according to his works, whose Kingdom
endures unceasingly unto the infinite ages ; for He sit-
teth on the right hand of the Father not only in this
age, but also in that which is to come.
And we believe in the Holy Ghost, that is, the
Paraclete, which, having promised to the Apostles, He
sent forth after the ascension into heaven, to teach them
and to remind of all things : tlirough whom also shall
be sanctified the souls of those who sincerely believe in
Him.
4 These words, which answer to those [of our pre:.ent 'Nicene'
Creed], are directed against the doctrine of Marcellus [on which
see Prolegg. ii. \ 3 (2) c, 3]. Cf. Eusebius, de Eccl. Theol. iii. 8.
17. cont. Marc. ii. 4.
5 S. Hilary, as we have ?een above, p. 78, by implication calls
this the Nicene Anathema ; but it omits many of the Nicene
clauses, and evades our Lord's eternal existence, substituting for
' once He was not,' ' there was time when He was not.' It seems
to have been considered sufficient for Gaul, as used now, for Italy
as in the sth Confession or Macrostich, and for Africa as in the
creed of Philippopolis.
6 Little is known of Macedonius who was Bishop of Mop-
suestia, or of Martyrius ; and too much of Eudoxius. This Long
Confession, or Macrostich, which follows, is remarkable ; [see
Prolegg. ch. ii. § 6 (3), Gwatkin, p. 125 sq-^
7 5th Confession or Macrostich, a.d. 344. [Published by the
Council which deposed Stephen and elected Leontius bishop of
Antioch.]
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA.
463
But those who say, (i) that the Son was from nothing,
or from other subsistence and not from God ; {2) and
that .there was a time or age when He was not, the
Catholic and Holy Church regards as aliens. Likewise
those who say, (3) that there are three Gods : (4) or
that Christ is not God ; (5) or that before the ages
He was neither Christ nor Son of God; (6) or that
Father and Son, or Holy Ghost, are the same ; (7) or
that the Son is Ingenerate ; or that the Father begat
the Son, not by choice or will ; the H oly and Catholic
Church anathematizes.
(i.) For neither is safe to say that the Son is from
nothing, (since this is no where spoken of Him in
divinely inspired Scripture,) nor again of any other sub-
sistence before existing beside the Father, but from God
alone do we define Him genuinely to be generated. For
the divine Word teaches that the Ingenerate and Un-
begun, the Father of Christ, is One ^.
(2.) Nor may we, adopting the hazardous position,
'There was once when He was not,' from unscriptural
sources, imagine any interval of time before Him, but
only the God who has generated Him apart from time ;
for through Him both times and ages came to be. Yet
we must not consider the Son to be co-unbegun and co-
ingenerate with the Father ; for no one can be properly
called Father or Son of one who is co-unbegun and
co-ingenerate with Him'. But we acknowledge™ that
the Father who alone is Unbegun and Ingenerate, hath
generated inconceivably and incomprehensibly to all : and
that the Son hath been generated before ages, and in no
wise to be ingenerate Himself like the Father, but to
have the Father who generated Him as His beginning ;
for ' the Head of Christ is God.' (i Cor. xi. 3.)
(3.) Nor again, in confessing three realities and three
Persons, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost
according to the Scriptures, do we therefore make Gods
three ; since we acknowledge the Self-complete and
Ingenerate and Unbegun and Invisible God to be one
only% the God and Father (Joh. xx. 17) of the Only-
begotten, who alone hath being from Himself, and alone
vouchsafes this to all others bountifully.
(4.) Nor again, in saying that the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ is one only God, the only Ingenerate, do
we therefore deny that Christ also is God before ages :
as the disciples of Paul of Samosata, who say that after
the incarnation He was by advance * made God, from
being made by nature a mere man. For we acknow-
ledge, that though He be subordinate to His Father and
God, yet, being before ages begotten of God, He is God
perfect according to nature and true 3, and not Iirst man
and then God, but first God and then becoming man for
us, and never having been deprived of being.
(5.) We abhor besides, and anathematize those who
make a pretence of saying that He is but the mere word
of God and unexisting, having His being in another, —
now as if pronounced, as some speak, now as mental ■•, —
* It is observable that here and in the next paragraph the only
reasons they give against using the only two Arian formulas which
they condemns is that they are not found in Scripture. Here, in
their explanation of the ef ovk ovtuiv, or from nothing, they do but
deny it with Eusebius's evasion, sufir. p. 75, note 5.
9 They argue after the usual Arian manner, that the term
' Son ' essentially implies beginning, and excludes the title ' co-
unoriginate ;' but see sufir. § i6, note i, and p. 154, note 5.
'° [The four lines which follow are cited by Lightfoot, Ign.
p. 91. ed. 2, as from de Syn. § 3.]
I Cf. § 28, end. 2 cK TrpoKOJTis, dt Deer. § 10, note 10.
3 These strong words, Saov icara <f>va-i.v TeAeioi/ (cal dA7)9rj are
of a different character from any which have occurred in the Arian
Confessions. They can only be explained away by considering
thcra used in coniras/ to the Samosatene doctrine; so that 'per-
fect according to nature ' and ' true,' will not be directly connected
with 'God' so much as opposed to, ' by advance,' 'by adoption,'
&c.
4 The use of the words ivSiaSero'; and Trpoc^optKot, mental and
pronounced, to distinguish the two senses of Aoyos, reason and
■word, came Irom the school of the Stoics, and is found in Philo,
and was under certain limitations allowed in Catholic theology.
holding that He was not Christ or Son of God or media-
tor or image of God before ages ; but that He first be-
came Christ and Son of God, when He took our flesh
from the Virgin, not quite four hundred years since. For
they will have it that then Christ began His Kingdom, and
that it will have an end after the consummation of all
and the judgment s. Such are the disciples of Marcellus
and Scotinus* of Galatian Ancyra, who, equally with
Jews, negative Christ's existence before ages, and His
Godhead, and unending Kingdom, upon pretence of sup-
porting the divine Monarchy. We, on the contrary,
regard Him not as simply God's pronounced word or
mental, but as Living God and Word, existing in Him-
self, and Son of God and Christ ; being and abiding with
His Father before ages, and that not in foreknowledge
only?, and ministering to Him for the whole framing
whether of things visible or invisible. For He it is, to
whom the Father said, ' Let Us make man in Our
image, after Our likeness^' (Gen. i. 26), who also was
seen in His own Person ' by the patriarchs, gave the law,
spoke by the prophets, and at last, became man, and
manifested His own Father to all men, and reigns to
never-ending ages. For Christ has taken no recent
dignity, but we have believed Him to be perfect from the
first, and like in all things to the Father'.
(6.) And those who say that the P'ather and Son and
Holy Ghost are the same, and irreligiously take the
Three Names of one and the same Reality and Person,
we justly proscribe from the Church, because they sup-
pose the illimitable and impassible Father to be limit-
able withal and passible through His becoming man :
for such are they whom Romans call Patripassians,
and we Sabeliians^. For we acknowledge that the
Father who sent, remained in the peculiar state of His
unchangeable Godhead, and that Christ who was sent
fulfilled the economy of the Incarnation.
(7.) And at the same time those who irreverently say
that the Son has been generated not by choice or will,
thus encompassing God with a necessity which excludes
choice and purpose, so that He begat the Son unwillingly,
we account as most irreligious and alien to the Church ;
in that they have dared to define such things concerning
God, beside the common notions concerning Him, nay,
beside the purport of divinely inspired Scripture. For
Damasc. F. O. ii. 21. To use either absolutely and to the ex-
clusion of the other would have involved some form of Sabeltianism,
or Arianism as the case might be ; but each might correct the
defective sense of either S. Theophilus speaks of our Lord as at
once 6rStii6eT05 and 7rpo<J)opiK6s. ad Autol. ii. 10 and 22, S. Cyril
as ivhiaSito^, in Joann. p. 39. but see also Thesaur. p. 47. When
the Fathers deny that our Lord is the irpoi^opt/cos Ao-yos, they only
mean that that title is not, even as far as its philosophical idea
went, an adequate representative of Him, a word spoken being
insubstantive, vid Orat. ii. 35 ; Hil. de Syn. 46 ; Cyr. Cntech. xi.
10; Damas. Ep. ii. p. 203 ; Cyril in Joann. p. 31 ; Iren. Hctr. ii,
12. n. 5. Marcellus is said by Eusebius to have considered our
Lord as first the one and then the other. Tied. Theol. ii. 15.
5 This passage seems taken from Euseljius, and partly from
Marcellus's own words. S. Cyril speaks of his doctrine m like
terms. Cateeh. xv. 27.
6 i.e. Photinus. [A note illustrating the frecjuency of similar
nicknames is omitted. On Photinus, see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3.
ad Jin.] 7 Cf. Eusiib. contr. Mare- i. 2. 8 Cf. § 27, notes.
9 aiiT07rpo(7(o™s and so Cyril Hier. Cateeh. xv. 14 and 17 (It
me.-ins, ' not in personation '), and Philo contrasting divine ap-
pearances with those of Angels. /,(?§■. .(4 //«■,§-. iii. 62. On the other
hand, Theophilus on the text, ' The voice of the Lord God walking
in the garden," speaks of the Word, ' assuming the person, Trpo-
(TiMTTOv, of the Father," and 'in the person ot God," ad Autol.
ii. 22. the word not then having its theological sense.
1 o/iiotoi' Kara Trai/ra. Here again we have a strong Semi-Arian
or almost Catholic formula introduced hy the bye. Of course it
arlmitted of evasion, but in its fulness it included ' essence." [See
above § 8, note i, and Inlrod.]
2 St:e vol. i. of this series, p. 295, note i. In the reason which
the Confession alleges against that heretical doctrine it is almost
implied that the divine nature of the Son suffered on the Cross.
They would naturally fall into this notion directly they gave up
our Lord's absolute divinity. It would naturally follow that our
Lord had no human soul, but that His pie-e.xistent nature stood
in the place of it : — also that His Mediatorship was no peculiarity
of His Incarnation, vid. { 23, note 2. g 27, Anath. 12, note.
464
DE SYNODIS.
we, knowing that God is absolute and sovereign over
Himself, have a religious judgment that He generated
the Son voluntarily and freely ; yet, as we have a reverent
belief in the Son's words concerning Himself (Prov. viii.
22), ' The Lord created me a beginning of His ways
for His works,' we do not understand Him to have
been originated like the creatures or works which through
Him came to be. For it is irreligious and alien to the
ecclesiastical faith, to compare the Creator with handi-
works created by Him, and to think that He has the same
manner of origination with the rest. For divine Scrip-
ture teaches us really and truly that the Only-begotten
Son was generated sole and solely^'. Yet 3, in saying
that the Son is in Himself, and both lives and exists like
the Father, we do not on that account separate Him from
the Father, imagining place and interval between their
union in the way of bodies. For we believe that they are
united with each other without mediation or distance ■»,
and that they exist inseparable ; all the Father embosom-
ing the Son, and all the Son hanging and adhering to the
Father, and alone resting on the Father's breast con-
tinually''^ Believing then in the All-perfect Triad, the
most Holy, that is, in the Father, and the Son, and the
Holy Ghost, and calling the Father God, and the Son
God, yet we confess in them, not two Gods, but one
dignity of Godhead, and one exact harmony of dominion,
the Father alone being Head over the whole universe
wholly, and over the Son Himself, and the Son sub-
ordinated to the Father ; but, excepting Him, ruling over
all things after Him which through Himself have come
to be, and granting the grace of the Holy Ghost un-
sparingly to the saints at the Father's will. For that such
is the account of the Divine Monarchy towards Christ,
the sacred oracles have delivered to- us.
Thus much, in addition to the faith before published in
epitome, we have been compelled to draw forth at length,
not in any officious display, but to clear away all unjust
suspicion concerning our opinions, among those who
are ignorant of our affairs : and that all in the West
may know, both the audacity of the slanders of the
heterodox, and as to the Orientals, their ecclesiastical
mind in the Lord, to which the divinely inspired
Scriptures bear witness without violence, where men are
not perverse.
27. However they did not stand even to this ;
for again at Sirmiums they met together s* against
Photinus ^ and there composed a faith again,
'• The Confession still insists upon the unscripturalness of the
Catholic positions. On the main subject of this paragraph the
fleA^o-et yeviniekv, cf. Orat. iii. 59, &c. The doctrine of the ^ovo-
■yei/es has already partially come before us in de Deer. §§ 7 — 9.
pp. 154 sq. Mdfws, not as the creatures, vid. p. 75, note 6.
3 The following passage is in its very form an interpolation or
appendix, while its doctrine bears distinctive characters of some-
thing higher than the old absolute separation between the
Father and the Son. [Eusebius of Cses. had] considered Them as
two ovfriai, ojaotai like, but not as ofji.oova-i.OL ; his very explana-
tion of the word Tf'Aetos was ^independent' and 'distinct.' Lan-
guage then, such as that in the text, was the nearest assignable
approach to the reception of the o\).oovcn.ov\ [and in fact, to] the
doctrine of the ■neoiX'^P't'^'-'ii of which sujtr. Orat. iii.
4 De Deer. § 8. 4» De Deer. § 26.
5 Sirmium [Mitrowitz on the Save] was a city of lower Pan-
nonia, not far from the Danube, and was the great bulwark of the
Illyrian provinces of the Empire. There Vetranio assumed the
purple ; and there Constantius was born. The frontier war caused
it to be from time to time the Imperial residence. We hear of
Constantius at Sirmium in the summer of 357. Ammian. xvi. 10.
He also passed there the ensuing winter, ibid. xvii. 12. In Oc-
tober, 358, after the Sarmatian war, he entered Sirmium in triumph,
and passed the winter there, xvii. 13 fin. and with a short absence
in the s;pring, remained there till the end of May, 359.
S» [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. § 7]. The leading person in this Council
was Basil of Ancyra. Basil held a disputation with Photinus.
Silvanus too of Tarsus now appears for the first time : while, ac-
cording to Socrates, Mark of Arethusa drew up the Anathemas ;
the Confessiori used was the same as that sent to Constans, of the
Council of Philippopolis, and the Macrostich.
6 S Hilary treats their creed as a Catholic composition. deSyn.
not drawn out into such length, not so full in
words; but subtracting the greater part and
adding in its place, as if they had listerfed to
the suggestions of others, they wrote as
follows : —
We believe? in One God, the Father Almighty, the
Creator and Maker of all things, ' from whom all father-
hood in heaven and earth is named ^. '
And in His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus the
Christ, who before all the ages was begotten from the
Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all
things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and
invisible, being Word and Wisdom and True Light and
Life, who in the last of days was made man for us, and
was bom of the Holy Virgin, and crucified and dead and
buried, and rose again from the dead the third day, and
was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the right
hand of the Father, and is coming at the consummation of
the age, to judge quick and dead, and to render to every
one according to his works ; whose Kingdom being
unceasing endures unto the infinite ages ; for He shall
sit on the right hand of the Father, not only in this
age, but also in that which is to come.
And in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete ; which,
having promised to the Apostles to send forth after His
ascension into heaven, to teach and to remind them of
all things. He did send ; through whom also are sancti-
fied the souls of those who sincerely believe in Him.
(l.) But those who say that the Son was from nothing
or from other subsistence » and not from God, and that
there was time or age when He was not, the Holy and
Catholic Church regards as aliens.
(2.) Again we say. Whosoever says that the Father
and the Son are two Gods, be he anathema'".
(3. ) And whosoever, saying that Christ is God, before
ages Son of God, does not confess that He has sub-
served the Father for the framing of the universe, be
he anathema ".
39—63. Philastrius and Vigilius call the Council a meeting oi
'holy bishops' and a ' Catholic Council,' de Hter. 65. in Eutych.
V. init. What gave a character and weight to this Council was,
that it met to set right a real evil, and was not a mere pretence
with Arian objects.
7 6th Confession, or ist Sirmian, a.d. 351.
8 Eph. iii. 15. 9 Vid. p. 77, sgg.
■° This Anathema which has occurred in substance in the Macros-
tich, and again infr. Anath. 18 and 23. is a disclaimer of their in
fact holding a supreme and a secondary God. In the Macrostich
it is disclaimed upon a simple Anan basis. The Semi-Arians were
more open to this imputation ; Eusebius, as we have seen above,
distinctly calling our Lord a second and another God. vid. p. 75,
note 7. It will be observed that this Anathema contradicts the
one which immediately follows, and the nth, in which Christ is
called God ; except, on the one hand, the Father and Son are One
God, which was the Catholic doctrine, or, on the other, the Son is
God in name only, which was the pure Arian or Anomccan.
" The language of Catholics and heretics is very much the
same on this point of the Son's ministration, with this essential
difference of sense, that Catholic writers mean a ministration in-
ternal to the divine substance and an instrument connatural with
the Father, and Arius meant an external and created medium of
operation. Thus S. Clement calls our Lord ' the All-harmonious
Instrument (opyai/ov) of God." Protrept. p. 6 ; Eusebius ' an ani-
mated and living instrument (opyafov kix.\\ivxov\ nay, rather divine
and vivific of every substance and nature." Demonstr. iv. 4.
S. Basil, on the other hand, insists that the Arians reduced our
Lord to ■ an inanimate instrument,' op-yayof a-'liv^ov, though they
called Him virovpyov TeKeiOTaroi/, most perfect minister or under-
worker. adv. Eunom. ii. zi. Elsewhere he makes them say, ' the
nature of a cause is one, and the nature of an instrument, 'opyavov,
another ; . . . . foreign then in nature is the Son from the Father,
since such is an instrument from a workman.' De Sp. S. n. 6 fin.
vid. also n. 4 fin. 19, and 20. And so S. Gregory, ' The Father
signifies, the Word accomplishes, not servilely, nor ignorantly,
but with knowledge and sovereignty, and to speak more suitably,
in a father's way, TrarpiKios. Orat. 30. 11. Cf. S. Cyril, in Joann.
p. 48. Explanations such as these secure for the Catholic writers
some freedom in their modes of speaking, e.g. Athan. speaks ot
the Son, as ' enjoined and ministering,' TrpocrTaTTOfiecos, Kai inrovp-
yuiv, Orat. ii. § 22. Thus S. Irenseus speaks of the Father being
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA.
465
(4.) Whosoever presumes to say that the Ingenerate,
or a part of Him, was born of Mary, be he anathema.
(5.) Whosoever says that according to foreknowledge '
the Son is before Mary and not that, generated from
the Father before ages. He was with God, and that
through Him all things were originated, be he anathema.
(6.) Whosoever shall pretend that the essence of God
is dilated or contracted *, be he anathema.
(7.) Whosoever shall say that the essence of God
being dilated made the Son, or shall name the di-
lation of His essence Son, be he anathema.
(8.) Whosoever calls the Son of God the mental or
pronounced Word 3, be he anathema.
(9.) Whosoever says that the Son from Mary is man
only, be he anathema.
(10.) Whosoever, speaking of Him who is from
Mary God and man, thereby means God the Ingener-
ate *, be he anathema.
(II.) Whosoever shall explain 'I God the First and
I the Last, and besides Me there is no God,' (Is.
xliv. 6), which is said for the denial of idols and of gods
that are not, to the denial of the Only-begotten, before
ages God, as Jews do, be he anathema.
(12.) Whosoever hearing 'The Word was made
flesh,' (John i. 14), shall consider that the Word has
changed into flesh, or shall say that He has undergone
alteration by taking flesh, be he anathema s.
(13.) Whosoever hearing the Only-begotten Son of
God to have been crucified, shall say that His Godhead
has undergone corruption, or passion, or alteration, or
diminution, or destruction, be he anathema.
(14.) Whosoever shall say that 'Let Us make man'
(Gen. i. 26), was not said by the Father to the Son,
but by God to Himself, be he anathema*.
(15.) Whosoever shall say that Abraham saw, not
the Son, but the Ingenerate God or part of Him, be he
anathema 7.
(16.) Whosoever shall say that with Jacob, not the
well-pleased and commanding, xeKevovToi, and the Son doing and
framing. Hier. iv. 75. S. Basil too, in the same treatise in which
are some ol the foregoing protests, speaks of ' the Lord ordering,
Trpoo-Tiio-croi/Ta, and the Word framing.' de Sp. S. n. 38, S. Cyril of
Jerusalem, of ' Him who bids, eireAAerai, bidding to one who is
present with Him,' Cat. xi. 16. vid. also vjrrjpeTui' tj) ^ovAj;,
Justin. T-ryph. 126, and virovpyov, Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10.
e juTnjpeTwi' SeA^/iiaTi, Clem. Strom, vii. p. 832.
I § 26, n. 7. 2 Orat. iv. § 13.
3 §26, n. 4. 4 §26(2) n. (2).
5 The i2th and 13th Anathemas are intended to meet the
charge which is alluded to \ 26 (6), note 2, that Arianism involved
the doctrine that our Lords divine nature suffered. [But see
Gwatkin, p. 147] Athanasius brings this accusatiou against them
ilistinctly in his work against Apollinaris. contr. Apoll. i. 15.
vid. also Ambros. de Fide, iii. 31. Salig in his de Eutychianisjno
ant. Eutycheu takes notice of none of the passages in the text.
6 This Anathema is directed against Marcellus, who held the
very opinion which it denounces, that the Almighty spake with
Himself. Euseb. Eccles. Theol. ii. 15. The Jews said that
Almighty God spoke to the Angels. Basil. Hexacm. fin. Others
that the plural was used as authorities on earth use it in way of
dignity. Theod. in Gen. ig. As to the Catholic Fathers, as is
well known, they interpreted the text in the sense here given.
See Petav.
7 This again, in spite of the wording, which is directed against
the Catholic doctrine [or Marcellus?] is a Catholic interpretation,
vid. (besides 'PMAo de Sotnniis. i. 12.) Justin. Tryph. 56. and 126.
Iren. Har. iv. 10. n. i. Tertull. de cam. Christ. 6. adv. Marc.
iii. 9. adv. Prax. 16. Novat. de Trin. 18. Origen. in Gen. Horn.
iv. 5. Cyprian, adv. Jud. ii. 5. Antioch. Syn. contr. Paul, apud
Routh. Kelt. t. 2. p. 469. Athan. Orat. ii. 13- Epiph. Ancor. 29
ind 39. Hier. 71. 5. Chrysost. in Gen. Horn. 41. 7. These refer-
nces are principally Irora Petavius ; also from Dorscheus, who
:ias written an elaborate commentary on this Council, &c. The
Catholic doctrine is that the Son has condescended to become
visible by means of material appearances. Augustine seems to
have been the first who changed the mode of viewing the texts in
question, and considered the divine appearance, not God the Son,
buta created Angel* Vid. de Trin. li. passim. Jansenius con-
siders that he did so /win a suggestion of S.Ambrose, that tlie
hitherto received view had been the origo haeresis Arians, vid. his
Augiistinus, lib. proam. c. 12. t. 2. p. 12.
Son as man, but the Ingenerate God or part of Him,
has wrestled, be he anathema *.
(17.) Whosoever shall explain, 'The Lord rained fire
from the Lord ' (Gen. xix. 24), not of the Father and
the Son, and says that He rained from Himself, be he
anathema. For the Son, being Lord, rained from the
Father Who is Lord.
(18.) Whosoever, hearing that the Father is Lord
and the Son Lord and the Father and Son Lord,
for there is Lord from Lord, says there are two Gods,
be he anathema. For we do not place the Son in
the Father's order, but as subordinate to the Father;
for He did not descend upon Sodom without the
Father's will, nor did He rain from Himself, but from
the Lord, that is, the Father authorising it. Nor is He
of Himself set down on the right hand, but He hears
the Father saying, ' Sit Thou on My right hand ' (Ps.
ex. i).
(19.) Whosoever says that the Father and the Son
and the Holy Ghost are one Person, be lie anathema.
(20.) Whosoever, speaking of the Holy Ghost as
Paraclete, shall mean the Ingenerate God, be he ana-
thema 9.
(21.) Whosoever shall deny, what the Lord taught us,
that the Paraclete is other than the Son, for He hath
said, ' And another Paraclete shall the Father send
to you, whom I will ask,' (John xiv. 16) be he ana-
thema.
(22.) Whosoever shall say that the Holy Ghost is
part of the Father or of the Son', be he anathema.
(23.) Whosoever shall say that the Father and the
Son and the Holy Ghost are three Gods, be he ana-
thema.
(24.) Whosoever shall say that the Son of God at
the will of God has come to be, as one of the works, be
he anathema.
(25. ) Whosoever shall say that the Son has been gene-
rated, the Father not wishing it% be he anathema.
For not by compulsion, led by physical necessity,
did the Father, as He wished not, generate the Son,
but He at once willed, and, after generating Him from
Himself apart from time and passion, manifested Him.
(26.) Whosoever shall say that the Son is without
beginning and ingenerate, as if speaking of two un-
begun and two ingenerate, and making two Gods, be
he anathema. For the Son is the Head, namely
the beginning of all : and God is the Head, namely
the beginning of Christ ; for thus to one unbegun be-
ginning of the universe do we religiously refer all things
through the Son.
(27.) And in accurate delineation of the idea of
Christianity we say this again ; Whosoever shall not
say that Christ is God, Son of Godj as being before
ages, and having subserved the Father in the framing
of the Universe, but that from the time that He was
born of Mary, from thence He was called Christ and
Son, and took an origin of being God, be he ana-
thema.
28. Casting aside the whole of this, as if
they had discovered something better, they
8 This and the following Canon are Catholic in their main doc-
trine, and might be illustrated, if necessary, as the foregoing.
9 It was an expedient of the later Macedonians to deny that
the Holy Spirit was God because it was not usual to call Him
Ingenerate. They asked the Catholics whether the Holy Spirit
was Ingenerate, generate, or created, for into these three they
divided all things, vid. Basil in Sabeil. et Ar. Horn. xxiv. 6.
But, as the Arians had first made the alternative only between
Ingenerate and created, and Athan. de Deer. § 28. shews that
generate is a third idea really tlistinct from one and the otiier, so
S. Greg. Naz. adds, processive, iKnopivjov, as an intermediate
idea, contrasted with Ingenerate, yet distinct from generate. Orat,
xxxi. 8. In other words, Ingenerate means, not only tut gentratt,
but not from any origin, vid. August, de Trin. xv. a6.
I i>/ra(i6). = S ^6(7).
VOL. IV.
Hh
466
DE SYNODIS.
propound another faith, and write at Sirmium
in Latin what is here translated into Greek 3.
Whereas* it seemed good that there should be some
discu^sion concerning faith, all points were carefully
investigated and discussed at Sirmium in the presence
of Valens, and Ursacius, and Germinius, and the rest.
It is held for certain that there is one God, the Father
Almighty, as also is preached in all the world.
And His One Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus
Christ, generated from Him before the ages ; and that
we may not speak of two Gods, since the Lord Himself
has said, ' I go to My Father and your Father, and My
God and your God' (John xx. 17). On this account
He is God of all, as also the Apostle taught : ' Is
He God of the Jews only, is He not also of the
Gentiles? yea of the Gentiles also : since there is one
God who shall justify the circumcision from faith, and
the uncircumcision through faith ' (Rom. iii. 29, 30) ;
and every thing else agrees, and has no ambiguity.
But since many persons are disturbed by questions
concerning what is called in Latin ' Substantia,' but in
Greek ' Usia,' that is, to make it understood more
exactly, as to ' Coessential,' or what is called, 'Like-
in-Essence,' there ought to be no mention of any of
these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for
this reason and for this consideration, that in divine
Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they
are above men's knowledge and above men's under-
standing ; and because no one can declare the Son's
generation, as it is written, 'Who shall declare His
generation ' (Is. liii. 8) ? for it is plain that the Father
only knows how He generated the Son, and again the
Son how He has been generated by the Father. And
to none can it be a question that the Father is greater :
for no one can doubt that the Father is greater in
honour and dignity and Godhead, and in the very name
of Father, the Son Himself testifying, 'The Father that
sent Me is greater than 1' (John x. 29, lb. xiv. 28).
And no one is ignorant, that it is Catholic doctrine,
that there are two Persons of Father and Son, and that
the Father is greater, and the Son subordinated to the
Father together with all things which the Father has
subordinated to Him, and that the Father has no begin-
ning, and is invisible, and immortal, and impassible ; but
that the Son has been generated from the Father, God
from God, Light from Light, and that His origin, as
aforesaid, no one knows, but the Father only. And that
the Son Himself and our Lord and God, took flesh, that
is, a body, that is, man, from Mary the Virgin, as the
Angel preached beforehand ; and as all the Scriptures
teach, and especially the Apostle himself, the doctor of
the Gentiles, Christ took man of Mary the Virgin,
through which He has suflered And the whole faith is
summed upS, and secured in this, that a Trinity should
ever be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, ' Go ye
and baptize all the nations in the Name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' (Matt, xxviii. 19).
And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity ;
but the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, sent forth through
the Son, came according to the promise, that He might
teach and sanctify the Apostles and all believers*.
3 [The 'blasphemia' of Potamlus, bishop of Lisbon; »ee Pro-
Ie£-g: ch. ii. § 8 (2), Hil. de Syn. 11 ; Socr. ii. 30].
4 7th Confession, or 2nrl Sirmian, A.D. 357.
5 Ke^aXaiov. vid. de Deer. § 31. p. 56; Orat. i. § 34 ; Epiph.
Heer. Ti- ii-
6 It will be observed that this Confession ; i. by denying ' two
Gods,' and declaring that the One God is the God of Christ,
implies that our Lord is not God. 2. It says that the word ' sub-
stance,' and its compounds, ought not to be used as being un-
scriptural, mysterious, and leadini; to disturbance ; 3. it holds that
the Father is greater than the Son 'in honour, dignity, and god-
head ;' 4. that the Son is subordinate to the Father with all other
things ; 5. that it is the Father's characteristic to be invisible and
impassible. They also say that our Lord, hominem suscepisse per
29. After drawing up this, and then be-
coming dissatisfied, they composed the faith
which to their shame they paraded with 'the
Consulate.' And, as is their wont, condemn-
ing this also, they caused Martinian the notary
to seize it from the parties who had the copies
of it 7. And having got the Emperor Constan-
tius to put forth an edict against it, they form
another dogma afresh, and with the addition
of certain expressions, according to their wont,
they write thus in Isauria.
We decline^ not to bring forward the authentic faith
published at the Dedication at Antioch' ; though cer-
tainly our fathers at the time met together for a par-
ticular subject under investigation. But since ' Coes-
sential' and ' Like-in-essence,' have troubled many
persons in times past and up to this day, and since
moreover some are said recently to have devised the
Son's ' Unlikeness ' to the Father, on their account we
reject ' Coessential ' and ' Like-in-essence,' as alien
to the Scriptures, but ' Unlike ' we anathematize, and
account all who profess it as aliens from the Church.
And we distinctly confess the ' Likeness ' of the Son
to the Father, according to the Apostle, who says
of the Son, * Who is the Image of the Invisible God'
(Col. i. 15).
And we confess and believe in one God, the Father
Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, of all things
visible and invisible.
And we believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ, His
Son, generated from Him impassibly before all the ages,
God the Word, God from God, Only-begotten, light,
life, truth, wisdom, power, through whom all things
were made, in the heavens and on the earth, whether
visible or invisible. He, as we believe, at the end
of the world, for the abolishment of sin, took fle.sh of
the Holy Virgin, and was made man, and suffered for
our sins, and rose again, and was taken up into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and is
coming again in glory, to judge quick and dead.
We believe also in the Holy Ghost, which our
Saviour and Lord named Paraclete, having promised
to send Him to the disciples after His own departure,
as He did send ; through whom He sanctifieth those in
the Church who believe, and are baptized in the Name
of Father and Son and Holy Ghost.
But those who preach aught beside this faith the
Catholic Church regards as aliens. And that to this
faith that is equivalent which was published lately at
Sirmium, under sanction of his religiousness the Em-
peror, is plain to all who read it.
30, Having written thus in Isauria, they
quem cotnpassus est, a word which Phoebadius condemns in his re-
marks on this Confession ; where, by the way, he uses the word
'spiritus' in the sense of Hilary and the Ante-Nicene Fathers,
in a connection which at once explains the obscure words of the
supposititious Sardican Confession (vid. above, § 9, note 3), and
turns them into another evidence of this additional heresy in-
volved in Arianism. ' Impassibilis Deus,' says Phoebadius, 'quia
Deus Spiritus . . . non ergo passibilis Dei Spiritus, licet in homine
suo passus.' Now the Sardican Confession is thought ignorant,
as well as unauthoritative, e.g. by Natalis Alex. Siec. 4. Diss. 29,
because it imputes to Valens and Ursaciiis the following belief,
which he supposes to be Patripassianism, but which exactly an-
swers to this aspect and representation of Arianism : on o Aoyos koL
ort TO TTi^tVfJia Kal etrravputOrj Kai ea^dyTj /cat aireOavev Kai av^aTrj.
Theod. //.£. ii. 6. p. 844.
7 Socrates [wrongly] connects this with the ' blasphemia.' Hist.
ii. 30. 8 pth Confession, at Seleucia a.d. 359.
9 The Semi-Arian majority in the Council had just before been
confirming the Creed of the Dedication; hence this beginning, vid.
sujir. § II. The present creed, as if to propitiate the Semi-Arian
majority^ adds an anathema upon the Anomoean as well as on the
Homoiision and Homceusion.
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA.
46;
went up to Constantinople', and there, as if
dissatisfied, they changed it, as is their wont,
and with some small additions against using
even 'Subsistence' of Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, they transmitted it to those at Arimi-
num, and compelled even those in the said
parts to subscribe, and those who contra-
dicted them they got banished by Constan-
tius. And it runs thus : —
We believe^ in One God, Father Almighty, from
whom are all things ;
And in the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten from
God before all ages and before every beginning, by whom
all things were made, visible and invisible, and begotten
as only-begotten, only from the Father only 3, God from
God, like to the Father that begat Him according to
the Scriptures ; whose origin no one knows, except the
Father alone who begat Him. He as we acknowledge,
the Only-begotten Son of God, the Father sending Him,
came hither from the heavens, as it is written, for the
undoing of sin and death, and was born of the Holy
Ghost, of Mary the Virgin according to the flesh, as it
is written, and conversed with the disciples, and having
fulfilled the whole Economy according to the Father's
will, was crucified and dead and buried and descended
to the parts below the earth ; at whom hades itself
shuddered : who also rose from the dead on the third
day, and abode with the disciples, and, forty days being
fulfilled, was taken up into the heavens, and sitteth on
the right hand of the Father, to come in the last day of
the resurrection in the Father's glory, that He may
render to every man according to his works.
And in the Holy Ghost, whom the Only-begotten
Son of God Himself, Christ, our Lord and God,
promised to send to the race c4 man, as Paraclete, as it
is written, ' the Spirit of truth ' (Joh. xvi. 13), which
He sent unto them when He had ascended into the
heavens.
But the name of 'Essence,' which was set down by
the Fathers in simplicity, and, being unknown by the
people, caused offence, because the Scriptures contain
it not, it has seemed good to abolish, and for the.
future to make no mention of it at all ; since the divine
Scriptures have made no mention of the Essence of
Father and Son. For neither ought Subsistence to be
named concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But
we say that the Son is Like the Father, as the divine
Scriptures say and teach ; and all the heresies, both
those which have been afore condemned already, and
whatever are of modern date, being contrary to this
published statement, be they anathema"*.
31. However, they did not stand even to
this ; for c'oming down from Constantinople to
* These two sections seem to have been inserted by Athan-
after his Letter was finished, and contain later occurrences in the
history of Ariminum, than were (.oatemplated when he wrote sii/>r.
§ II. vid. note 7 in loc. It should be added that at this Council
Ulfilas the Apostle of the Goths, who had hitherto followed the
Council of Nictea, conformed, and thus became the means of
spreading through his countrymen the Creed of Ariminum.
2 loth Confession at Nik6 and Constantinople, A.D. 359, 360.
3 fioi/o? '(.K fiot'ou. This phrase may be considered a symptom
of Anomosan influence : /noros -n-apa, or vtto, ju.di/ov being one
special formula adopted by Eunomius, explanatory of ^tora-yei/ijs,
in accordance with the original Arian theory, mentioned de Deer.
§ 7. supr. p. 154, that the Son was the one instrument of creation.
kunomius said that He alone was created by the Father alone;
all other things being created by the Father, not alone, but
through Him whom alone He had first created, vid. Cyril.
Thesaur. 25. Basil contr. Eunom. ii. 21. Acacius ap. Epiph.
Hcpr. 72. 7. p. 839.
4 Here as before, instead of speaking of Arianism, th« Confes-
sion anathematizes a/^ heresies, vid. supr. § 23, n. 4.
Antioch, they were dissatisfied that they had
written at all that the Son was 'Like the
Father, as the Scriptures say;' and putting
their ideas upon paper s, they began reverting
to their first doctrines, and said that ' the Son
is altogether unlike the Father,' and that the
' Son is in no manner like the Father,' and so
much did they change, as to admit those who
spoke the Arian doctrine nakedly and to de-
liver to them the Churches with Hcence to
bring forward the words of blasphemy with
iinpunity^. Because then of the extreme
shamelessness of their blasphemy they were
called by all Anomoeans, having also the name
of Exucontian 7, and the heretical Constantius
for the patron of their irreligion, who per-
sisting up to the end in irreligion, and on the
point of death, thought good to be baptized 8;
not however by religious men, but by Euzo-
ius 9, who for his Arianism had been deposed,
not once, but often, both when he was a
deacon, and when he was in the see of An-
tioch,
32. The forementioned parties then had
proceeded thus far, when they were stopped
and deposed. But well I know, not even
under these circumstances will they stop, as
many as have now dissembled '°, but they will
always be making parties against the truth, until
they return to themselves and say, ' Let us rise
and go to our fathers, and we will say unto
them, We anathematize the Arian heresy, and
we acknowledge the Nicene Council ; ' for
against this is their quarrel. Who then, with
ever so little understanding, will bear them
any longer ? who, on hearing in every Council
some things taken away and others added, but
perceives that their mind is shifty and trea-
cherous against Christ ? who on seeing them
embodying to so great a length both their
professions of faith, and their own exculpation,
but sees that they are giving sentence against
themselves, and studiously writing much which
may be likely by their officious display and
abundance of words to seduce the simple and
5 nth Confession at Antioch, a.d. 361. [Socr. ii. 45. The
occasion was the installation of Euzoius in place of Meletius.]
6 Acacius, Kudoxius, and the rest, after ratitying at Constan-
tinople the Creed framed at Nike and subscril^ed at Ariminum,
appear next at Antioch a year and a half later, when they throw off
the mask, and, avowing the Anomoean Creed, ' revert,' as S. Atha-
nasius says, ' to their first doctrines,' i.e. those with which Arius
started.
7 From 64 ouK ovriav, 'out of nothing," one of the original Arian
positions concerning the Son. Theodoret says that they were also
called He.xakionitae, from the nature of their place of meeting, Hczr,
iv. 3. and Du Cange confirms it so far as to shew that there was
a place or quarter of Constantinople Hexakionium. [Cf. Soph.
Lex. s.v.\
8 This passage shews that Athanasius did not insert these sec-
tions till two years after the composition of the work itself ; for
Constantine died a.d. 361.
9 Euzoius, now Arian Bishop of Antioch, was excommunicated
with Arius in Egypt and at Nicaia, and was restored with him to
the Church at the Council of Jerusalem.
10 inreKpivavTO. Hypocrites is almost a title of the Arians (v/ith
an appxrent allusion to i Tim. iv. 2. vid Socr. i. p. ?, Oral. i. § R).
H h 2
468
DE SYNODIS.
hide what they are in point of heresy ? But
as the heathen, as the Lord said, using vain
words in their prayers (Mat. vi. 7), are nothing
profited ; so they too, after all this out-
pouring, were not able to quench the judg-
ment pronounced against the Arian heresy,
but were convicted and deposed instead ; and
rightly ; for which of their formularies is to be
accepted by the hearer? or with what con-
fidence shall they be catechists to those who
come to them? for if they all have one and
the same meaning, what is the need of many?
But if need has arisen of so many, it follows
that each by itself is deficient, not complete ;
and they establish this point better than we
can, by their innovating on them all and re-
making them. And the number of their
Councils, and the difference of their state-
ments is a proof that those who were present
at them, while at variance with the Nicene, are
yet too feeble to harm the Truth.
PART III.
On the Symbols * of the Essence
AND ' CoESSENTIAL.'
We must look at the sense not the wording. The
offence excited is at the sense ; meaning of the
Symbols ; the question of their not being in Scrip-
ture. Those who hesitate only at ' coessential,' not
to be considered Arians. Reasons why ' coessen-
tial' is better than 'like-in-essence," yet the latter
may be interpreted in a good sense. Explanation
of the rejection of ' coessential ' by the Council which
condemned the Samosatene ; use of the word by
Dionysius of Alexandria ; parallel variation in the
use of Unoriginate ; quotation from Ignatius and
another ; reasons for using ' coessential ; ' objections
to it; examination of the word itself; further docu-
ments of the Council of Ariminum.
33. But since they are thus minded both
towards each other and towards those who
preceded them, proceed we to ascertain from
them what absurdity they have seen, or what
they complain of in the received phrases, that
they have proved 'disobedient to parents' (Rom.
i. 30), and contend against an Ecumenical Coun-
cil' ? ' The phrases "of the essence" and "co-
essential,"' say they, 'do not please us, for
they are an offence to some and a trouble
to many.' This then is what they allege in
their writings ; but one may reasonably an-
swer them thus : If the very words were by
themselves a cause of offence to them, it
must have followed, not that some only should
have been offended, and many troubled, but
that we also and all the rest should have
been affected by them in the same way ; but
I The subject before us, naturally rises out of what has gone
before. The Anomoean creed was hopeless ; but with the Semi-
Arians all that remained was the adjustment of phrases. Accord-
ingly, Athan. goes on to propose such explanations as might clear
ihe way for a re-union of Christendom. § 47, note.
if on the contrary all men are well content
with the words, and they who wrote them
were no ordinary persons but men who came
together from the whole world, and to these
testify in addition the 400 Bishops and more
who now met at Ariminum, does not this
plainly prove against those who accuse the
Council, that the terms are not in fault, but
the perverseness of those who misinterpret
them ? How many men read divine Scripture
wrongly, and as thus conceiving it, find fault
with the Saints? such were the former Jews,
who rejected the Lord, and the present Mani-
chees who blaspheme the Law 3; yet are
not the Scriptures the cause to them, but
their own evil humours. If then ye can shew
the terms to be actually unsound, do so and
let the proof proceed, and drop the pretence
of offence created, lest you come into the con-
dition of the Pharisees of old. For when they
pretended offence at the Lord's teaching. He
said, ' Every plant, which My heavenly Father
hath not planted, shall be rooted up ' (Matt.
XV. 13). By which He shewed that not the
words of the Father planted by Him were
really an offence to them, but that they mis-
interpreted what was well said, and offended
themselves. And in like manner they who at
that time blamed the Epistles of the Apostle,
impeached, not Paul, but their own deficient
learning and distorted mind^.
34. For answer, what is much to the purpose.
Who are they whom you pretend are offended
and troubled at these terms ? of those who
are religious towards Christ not one ; on the
contrary they defend and maintain them. But
if they are Arians who thus feel, what wonder
they should be distressed at words which
destroy their heresy? for it is not the terms
which offend them, but the proscription of
their irreligion which afflicts them. Therefore
let us have no more murmuring against the
Fathers, nor pretence of this kind ; or next 4
you will be making complaints of the Lord's
Cross, because it is ' to Jews an offence and
to Gentiles fooHshness,' as said the Apostle s
(t Cor. i. 23, 24). But as the Cross is not
faulty, for to us who believe it is ' Christ the
power of God and the wisdom of God,' though
Jews rave, so neither are the terms of the
Fathers faulty, but profitable to those who
honestly read, and subversive of all irreligion,
though the Arians so often burst with rage
as being condemned by them. Since then the
pretence that persons are offended does not
hold, tell us yourselves, why is it you are
3 Vid. Orat. i. 8 ; iv. 23.
4 wpa. vid. Orat. i. § 15 ; iv. § 10 ; Serap. ii. 1. Katpot. de Deer.
§ 15. init.
5 ' The Apostle ' is a common title of S. Paul ir. antiquity.
Cf. August, ad Bonifac. iii. 3.
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA.
469
not pleased with the phrase ' of the essence '
(this must first be enquired about), when you
yourselves have written that the Son is gene
rated from the Father? If when you name
the Father, or use the word ' God,' you do
not signify essence, or understand Him ac-
cording to essence, who is that He is, but
signify something else about Him ^, not to
say inferior, then you should not have written
that the Son was from the Father, but from
what is about Him or in Him ^ ; and so,
shrinking from saying that God is truly Fa-
ther, and making Him compound who is
simple, in a material way, you will be authors
of a newer blasphemy. And, with such ideas,
you must needs consider the Word, and the
title ' Son,' not as an essence but as a name ?*
only, and in consequence hold your own views
as far as names only, and be talking, not of
what you believe to exist, but of what you
think not to exist.
35. But this is more Hke the crime of the
Sadducees, and of those among the Greeks
who had the name of Atheists. It follows that
you will deny that even creation is the handy-
work of God Himself that is; at least, if
' Father ' and ' God ' do not signify the very
essence of Him that is, but something else,
which you imagine : which is irreligious, and
most shocking even to think of. But if, when
we hear it said, 'I am that I am,' and, 'In
the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth,' and, ' Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God
is one Lord,' and, 'Thus saith the Lord Al-
mighty ' (Ex. iii. 14 ; Gen. i. i ; Deut. vi. 4),
we understand nothing else than the very
simple, and blessed, and incomprehensible
essence itself of Him that is, (for though we
be unable to master what He is, yet hearing
* Father,' and ' God,' and ' Almighty,' we un-
derstand nothing else to be meant than the
very essence of Him that is ^) ; and if ye too
have said, that the Son is from God, it follows
that you have said that He is from the ' es-
sence'- of the Father. And since the Scrip-
tures precede you which say, that the Lord
is Son of the Father, and the Father Himself
precedes them, who says, ' This is My beloved
Son ' (Matt. iii. 17), and a son is no other than
the offspring from his father, is it not evident
that the Fathers have suitably said that the
Son is from the Father's essence ? considering
that it is all one to say rightly 'from God,'
and to say 'from the essence.' For all the
creatures, though they be said to have come
into being from God, yet are not from God
6 Cf. de Beer. 22, note i. 7 -De Deer. 24, note 9.
7» Vid. supr. Orat. i. § 15 *, de Deer. § 22, note x.
8 De Deer. 29, note 7.
as the Son is ; for they are not offsprings in
their nature, but works. Thus, it is said, ' in
the beginning God,' not 'generated,' but 'made
the heaven and the earth, and all that is in
them ' (Gen. i. i). And not, 'who generates,'
but 'who maketh His angels spirits, and His
ministers a flame of fire ' (Ps. civ. 4). And
though the Apostle has said, ' One God, from
whom all things' (i Cor. viii. 6), yet he says
not this, as reckoning the Son with other
things ; but, whereas some of the Greeks con-
sider that the creation was held together by
chance, and from the combination of atoms 9,
and spontaneously from elements of similar
structure ^°, and has no cause ; and others
consider that it came from a cause, but not
through the Word ; and each heretic has ima-
gined things at his will, and tells his fables
about the creation ; on this account the Apo-
stle was obliged to introduce ' from God,' that
he might thereby certify the Maker, and shew
that the universe was framed at His will.
And accordingly he straightway proceeds :
'And one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom
all things ' (i Cor. viii. 6), by way of excepting
the Son from that ' all ' (for what is called
God's work, is all done through the Son ; and
it is not possible that the things framed should
have one origin with their Framer), and by
way of teaching that the phrase ' of God,'
which occurs in the passage, has a different
sense in the case of the works, from what it
bears when used of the Son ; for He is oflf-
spring, and they are works : and therefore He,
the Son, is the proper offspring of His essence,
but they are the handywork of his will.
36. The Council, then, comprehending this',
and aware of the different senses of the same
word, that none should suppose, that the Son
was said to be ' from God ' like the creation,
wrote with greater explicitness, that the Son
was ' from the essence.' For this betokens
the true genuineness of the Son towards
the Father ; whereas, by the simple phrase
'from God,' only the Creator's will in fram-
ing is signified. If then they too had this
meaning, when they wrote that the Word
was ' from the Father,' they had nothing
to complain of in the Council ; but if they
meant ' of God,' in the instance of the Son,
as it is used of the creation, then as under-
standing it of the creation, they should not
name the Son, or they will be manifestly
mingling blasphemy with religiousness ; but
either they have to cease reckoning the Lord
with the creatures, or at least to refrain from
unworthy and unbecoming statements about
9 Democritus, or Epicurus. '<> Anaxagorai.
• De Deer. § 19.
470
DE SYNODIS.
the Son. For if He is a Son, He is not a
creature ; but if a creature, then not a Son.
Since these are their views, perhaps they will
be denying the Holy Laver also, because it
is administered into Father and into Son ;
and not into Creator and Creature, as they
account it. ' But,' they say, ' all this is not
written : and we reject these words as un-
scriptural.' But this, again, is an unblushing
excuse in their mouths. For if they think
everything must be rejected which is not writ-
ten, wherefore, when the Arian party invent
such a heap of phrases, not from Scripture ^,
' Out of nothing,' and 'the Son was not before
His generation,' and ' Once He was not,' and
' He is alterable,' and ' the Father is ineffable
and invisible to the Son,' and ' the Son knows
not even His own essence ; ' and all that Arius
has vomited in his light and irreligious Thalia,
why do not they speak against these, but
rather take their part, and on that account
contend with their own Fathers ? And, in
what Scripture did they on their part find
' Unoriginate,' and ' the term essence,' and
' there are three subsistences,' and ' Christ is
not very God,' and ' He is one of the hundred
sheep,' and ' God's Wisdom is ingenerate and
without beginning, but the created powers are
many, of which Christ is one ? ' Or how, when
in the so-called Dedication, Acacius and Euse-
bius and their fellows used expressions not in
Scripture, and said that * the First-born of the
creation' was 'the exact Image of the es-
sence and power and will and glory,' do they
complain of the Fathers, for making mention
of unscriptural expressions, and especially of
essence? For they ought either to complain
of themselves, or to find no fault with the
Fathers.
37. Now, if certain others made excuses of
the expressions of the Council, it might per-
haps have been set down, either to ignorance
or to caution. There is no question, for
instance, about George of Cappadocias, who
was expelled from Alexandria ; a man, with-
out character in years past, nor a Christian in
any respect ; but only pretending to the name
to suit the times, and thinking ' religion to be
a' means of 'gain' (i Tim. vi. 5). And there-
fore there is no reason to complain of his
making mistakes about the faith, considering
he knows neither what he says, nor whereof he
affirms ; but, according to the text, ' goeth after
all, as a bird' (i Tim. i. 7; Prov. vii. 22, 23,001
LXX. ?) But when Acacius, and Eudoxius, and
Patrophilus say this, do not they deserve the
strongest reprobation ? for while they write what
is unscriptural themselves, and have accepted
2 De Deer. 18, note 8.
3 [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 8 (i).]
many times the term 'essence' as suitable,
especially on the ground of the letter 3* of Eu-
sebius, they now blame their predecessors for
using terms of the same kind. Nay, though
they say themselves, that the Son is *God
from God,' and ' Living Word,' ' Exact Image
of the Father's essence ; ' they accuse the
Nicene Bishops of saying, that He who was
begotten is 'of the essence' of Him who'
begat Him, and ' Coessential ' with Him.
But what marvel if they conflict with their pre-
decessors and their own Fathers, when they
are inconsistent with themselves, and fall foul of
each other? For after pubHshing, in the so-
called Dedication at Antioch, that the Son is
exact Image of the Father's essence, and
swearing that so they held and anathematizing
those who held otherwise, nay, in Isauria,
writing down, ' We do not decline the authentic
faith published in the Dedication at Antioch 4,'
where the term ' essence ' was introduced, as if
forgetting all this, shortly after, in the same
Isauria, they put into writing the very contrary,
saying. We reject the words ' coessential,' and
' like-in-essence,' as alien to the Scriptures,
and abolish the term ' essence,' as not con-
tained therein 4*.
38. Can we then any more account such
men Christians? or what sort of faith have
they who stand neither to word nor writing,
but alter and change every thing according to
the times? For if, O Acacius and Eudoxius,
you ' do not dechne the faith published at the
Dedication,' and in it is written that the Son
is ' Exact Image of God's essence,' why is
it ye write in Isauria, 'we reject the Like in
essence?' for if the Son is not like the Fa-
ther according to essence, how is He ' exact
image of the essence ? ' But if you are dis-
satisfied at having written ' Exact Image of
the essence,' how is it that ye ' anathematize
those who say that the Son is Unlike ? ' for if
He be not according to essence like. He is
surely unlike : and the Unlike cannot be an
Image. And if so, then it does not hold
that ' he that hath seen the Son, hath seen the
Father' (John xiv. 9), there being then the
greatest possible difference between Them, or
rather the One being wholly Unlike the Other.
And Unlike cannot possibly be called Like.
By what artifice then do you call Unlike like,
and consider Like to be unlike, and pretend
to say that the Son is the Father's Image ? for
if the Son be not like the Father in essence,
something is wanting to the Image, and it is
not a complete Image, nor a perfect radiance s.
3» Supr. p. 73. 4 Supr. § 2p. 4» Supr. § 8.
5 It must not be supposed from this that he approves [as ade.
quate] the phrase o/aoios icar' oixriav or 6joioiov(nos, in this Treatise,
for in/r. § 53. he rejects it on the ground that when we speak of
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA.
471
How then read you, ' In Him dwelleth all the
fulness of the Godhead bodily ? ' and, ' from
His fulness all we received ' (Coloss. ii. 9 ;
John i. 16) ? how is it that you expel the Arian
Aetius as an heretic, though ye say the same
with him ? for he is your companion, O Acacius,
and he became Eudoxius's master in this so
great irreligion^; which was the reason why
Leontius the Bishop made him deacon, that
using the name of the diaconate as sheep's
clothing, he might be able with impunity to
pour forth the words of blasphemy.
39. What then has persuaded you to con-
tradict each other, and to procure to yourselves
so great a disgrace ? You cannot give any
good account of it; this supposition only re-
mains, that all you do is but outward pro-
fession and pretence, to secure the patronage
of Constantius and the gain from thence
accruing. And ye make nothing of accus-
ing the Fathers, and ye complain outright
of the expressions as being unscriptural ;
and, as it is written, ' opened your legs to
every one that passed by' (Ez. xvi. 25) ; so as
to change as often as they wish, in whose pay
and keep you are. Yet, though a man use
terms not in Scripture, it makes no diiference,
so that his meaning be religious ^^ But the
heretic, though he use scriptural terms, yet, as
being equally dangerous and depraved, shall
be asked in the words of the Spirit, ' Why dost
thou preach My laws, and takest My covenant
in thy mouth' (Ps. 1. 16)? Thus whereas the
devil, though speaking from the Scriptures, is
silenced by the Saviour, the blessed Paul,
though he speaks from profane writers, ' The
Cretans are always liars,' and, 'For we are His
offspring,' and, ' Evil communications corrupt
good manners,' yet has a religious meaning, as
being holy, — is ' doctor of the nations, in faith
and verity,' as having ' the mind of Christ '
(Tit. i. 12; Acts xvii. 28; i Cor. xv. 33; i Tim.
ii. 7 ; I Cor. ii. 16), and what he speaks, he
utters religiously. What then is there even
plausible, in the Arian terms, in which the
'caterpillar' (Joel ii. 25) and the 'locust' are
preferred to the Saviour, and He is reviled
with ' Once Thou wast not,' and ' Thou wast
created,' and ' Thou art foreign to God in
essence,' and, in a word, no irreverence is
unused among them? But what did the Fa-
thers omit in the way of reverence ? or rather,
have they not a lofty view and a Christ-
loving religiousness ? And yet these, they
'like,' we imply qualities, not essence. Yet he himself fre-
quently uses it, as other Fathers, and Orti. i. § 26. uses o/biotos
Trj^ ov<rta9.
6 [Prolegg. ch. ii. § 8 (2) a.]
6» Vid. p. 162, note 8. Cf. Greg. Naz. Orai. 31. 24. vid. also
Hil. contr. Constant. 16. August. Ep. 238. n. 4 — 6. Cyril. Dial. i.
p. 391. Petivius refers to other passages, de Trin. v. 5'. § 6.
wrote, 'We reject;' while those others they
endure in their insults towards the Lord, and
betray to all men, that for no other cause
do they resist that great Council but that it
condemned the Arian heresy. For it is on
this account again that they speak against
the term Coessential, about which they also
entertain wrong sentiments. For if their faith
was right, and they confessed the Father as
truly Father, believed the Son to be genuine
Son, and by nature true Word and W^isdom of
the Father, and as to saying that the Son is
' from God,' if they did not use the words of
Him as of themselves, but understood Him to
be the proper offspring of the Father's es-
sence, as the radiance is from light, they
would not every one of them have found fault
with the Fathers ; but would have been con-
fident that the Council wrote suitably ; and
that this is the right faith concerning our
Lord Jesus Christ.
40. 'But,' say they, 'the sense of such ex-
pressions is obscure to us ; ' for this is another
of their pretences, — ' We reject them 7,' say
they, 'because we cannot master their mean-
ing.' But if they were true in this profession,
instead of saying, ' We reject them,' they
should ask instruction from the well informed ;
else ought they to reject whatever they cannot
understand in divine Scripture, and to find
fault with the writers. But this were the ven-
ture of heretics rather than of us Christians ;
for what we do not understand in the sacred
oracles, instead of rejecting, we seek from
persons to whom the Lord has revealed it, and
from them we ask for instruction. But since
they thus make a pretence of the obscurity of
such expressions, let them at least confess
what is annexed to the Creed, and anathe-
matize those who hold that ' the Son is from
nothing,' and ' He was not before His genera-
tion,' and ' the Word of God is a creature and
work,' and 'He is alterable by nature,' and
' from another subsistence ; ' and in a word let
them anathematize the Arian heresy, which
has originated such irreligion. Nor let them
say any more, ' We reject the terms,' but that
' we do not yet understand them ;' by way of
having some reason to shew for declining
them. But I know well, and am sure, and
they know it too, that if they could confess all
this and anathematize the Arian heresy, they
would no longer deny those terms of the
Council. For on this account it was that the
Fathers, after declaring that the Son was
begotten from the Father's essence, and Co-
essential with Him, thereupon added, 'But
those who say' — what has just been quoted,
7 S8.
472
DE SYNODIS.
the symbols of the Arian heresy, — ' we ana-
thematize;' I mean, in order to shew that
the statements are parallel; and that the terms
in the Creed imply the disclaimers subjoined,
and that all who confess the terms, will cer-
tainly understand the disclaimers. But those
who both dissent from the latter and impugn
the former, such men are proved on every side
to be foes of Christ.
41. Those who deny the Council altogether,
are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks ;
those, however, who accept everything else that
was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about
the Coessential, must not be treated as ene-
mies ; nor do we here attack them as Ario-
maniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but
we discuss the matter with them as brothers
with brothers ^, who mean what we mean, and
dispute only about the word. For, confessing
that the Son is from the essence of the Father,
and not from other subsistence, and that He is
not a creature nor work, but His genuine and
natural offspring, and that He is eternally with
the Father as being His Word and Wisdom,
they are not far from accepting even the phrase,
' Coessential.' Now such is Basil, who wrote
from Ancyra concerning the faith 9. For only
to say ' like according to essence,' is very far
from signifying * of the essence,' by which,
rather, as they say themselves, the genuine-
ness of the Son to the Father is signified.
Thus tin is only like to silver, a wolf to a dog,
and gilt brass to the true metal ; but tin is not
from silver, nor could a wolf be accounted the
offspring of a dog'°. But since they say that
He is ' of the essence ' and ' Like-in-essence,'
what do they signify by these but 'Coes-
sential"?' For, while to say only 'Like-in-
essence,' does not necessarily convey ' of the
essence,' on the contrary, to say 'Coes-
sential,' is to signify the meaning of both
terms, ' Like-in-essence,' and ' of the essence.'
And accordingly they themselves in contro-
versy with those who say that the Word is a
creature, instead of allowing Him to be genuine
Son, have taken their proofs against them from
human illustrations of son and father ^^, with
this exception that God is not as man, nor the
8 [See Prolegg. ch. ii. § 8 (a) c]
9 [Ath. is referring to the Council of Ancyra, 358.]
" So also de Deer. § 23. p. 40 Pseudo-Ath. Hyf. Mel. et
Evseb. Hil. de Syn. 89. The illustration runs into this position,
■ Things that are like, [need] not be the same,' vid. § 39. note 3.
On the other hand, Athan. himself contends for the ToSirov TJj
buoLuxret, ' the same in likeness.' de Deer. § 20.
II Vid. Socr. iii. 25. p. 204. a.b. Una substantia religiose prae.
dicabitur quae ex nativitatis proprietate et ex naturae similitudine
ita indifferens sit, ut una dicatur. Hil. de Syn. 67.
I- Here at last Athan. alludes to the Ancyrene Synodal Letter,
vid. Epipli. Hixr. 73. 5 and 7. about which he has kept a pointed
silence above, when tracing the course of the Arian confessions.
That is, he treats the Semi-Arians as tenderly as S. Hilary, as
soon as they break company with the Arians. The Ancyrene
Council of 358 was a protest against the ' blasphemia' or second
Sirmian Confession
generation of the Son as issue of man, but
such as may be ascribed to God, and is
fit for us to think. Thus they have called
the Father the Fount of Wisdom and Life, and
the Son the Radiance of the Eternal Light, and
the Offspring from the Fountain, as He says, ' I
am the Life,' and, ' I Wisdom dwell with
Prudence' (John xiv. 6; Prov. viii. 12). But
the Radiance from the Light, and Offspring
firom Fountain, and Son from Father, how can
these be so fitly expressed as by ' Coessential ? '
And is there any cause of fear, lest, because
the offspring from men are coessential, the
Son, by being called Coessential, be Him-
self considered as a human offspring too?
perish the thought ! not so ; but the explana-
tion is easy. For the Son is the Father's
Word and Wisdom; whence we learn the
impassibihty and indivisibility of such a genera-
tion from the Father'. For not even man's
word is part of him, nor proceeds from him
according to passion ^ \ much less God's Word \
whom the Father has declared to be His own
Son, lest, on the other hand, if we merely heard
of ' Word,' we should suppose Him, such as is
the word of man, impersonal ; but that, hearing
that He is Son, we may acknowledge Him to
be living Word and substantive Wisdom.
42. Accordingly, as in saying ' offspring,' we
have no human thoughts, and, though we know
God to be a Father, we entertain no material
ideas concerning Him, but while we listen to
these illustrations and terms, we think suitably
of God, for He is not as man, so in like manner,
when we hear of ' coessential,' we ought to
transcend all sense, and, according to the
Proverb, 'understand by the understanding
what is set before us ' (Prov. xxiii. i) ; so as to
know, that not by will, but in truth, is He
genuine from the Father, as Life from Fountain,
and Radiance from Light. Else 3 why should
we understand ' oftspring ' and ' son,' in no
corporeal way, while we conceive of ' co-
essential' as after the manner of bodies?
especially since these terms are not here used
about different subjects, but of whom ' offspring'
is predicated, of Him is 'coessential' also.
1 It is usual with the Fathers to use the two terms ' Son ' and
' Word,' to guard and complete the ordinary sense of each other,
vid. p. 157, note 6 : and p. 167, note 4. The term Son, used by itself,
was abused into Arianism ; and the term Word into Sabellianism ;
again the term Son might be accused of introducing material no-
tions, and the term Word of imperfection and transitoriness.
Each of them corrected the other. Orat. i. § 28. iv. § 8. Euseb.
eontr. Marc. ii. 4. p. 54. l-'^id. Pel. Ep. iv. 141. So S. Cyril says
that we learn 'from Hi.s being called Son that He is from Him,
TO ef atiToi) ; from His being called Wisdom and Word, that He
is in Him,' TO €1/ auTui. Thesaur. iv. p. 31. However, S Athana-
sius observes, that properly speaking the one term implies the
other, i.e. in its fulness. Orat. iii. § 3.iv. § 24 fin. On the other
hand the heretics accused Catholics of inconsistency, or of a union
of opposite errors, because they accepted all the Scripture images
together. Vigilius of Thapsus, eontr. Eutych. ii. init. vid. also
i. init. and Eulogius, ap. Phot. 225, p. 759.
2 De Deer. § 10. 3 Vid. Epiph. Hear. Ti- 3, &c.
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA.
473
And it is but consistent to attach the same
sense to both expressions as appHed to the
Saviour, and not to interpret 'offspring' in a
good sense, and ' coessential ' otherwise ; since
to be consistent, ye who are thus minded and
who say that the Son is Word and Wisdom of
the Father, should entertain a different view of
these terms also, and understand Word in
another sense, and Wisdom in yet another.
But, as this would be absurd (for the Son
is the Father's Word and Wisdom, and the
Offspring from the Father is one and proper to
His essence), so the sense of ' Offspring ' and
' Coessential ' is one, and whoso considers
the Son an offspring, rightly considers Him
also as ' coessential.'
43. This is sufficient to shew that the mean-
ing of the beloved ones + is not foreign
nor far from the ' Coessential.' But since,
as they allege s (for I have not the Epistle
in question), the Bishops who condemned
the Samosatene ^ have said in writing that
the Son is not coessential with the Father,
and so it comes to pass that they, for caution
and honour towards those who have so said,
thus feel about that expression, it will be to the
purpose cautiously to argue with them this point
also. Certainly it is unbecoming to make
the one conflict with the others ; for all
are fathers ; nor is it religious to settle, that
these have spoken well, and those ill ; for all
of them fell asleep in Christ. Nor is it
right to be disputatious, and to compare the
respective numbers of those who met in the
Councils, lest the three hundred seem to throw
the lesser into the shade ; nor to compare
the dates, lest those who preceded seem to
eclipse those that came after. For all, I say,
are fathers; and yet not even the three hundred
laid down nothing new, nor was it in any self-
confidence that they became champions of
words not in Scripture, but they fell back upon
fathers, as did the others, and used their
words. For there have been two of the
name of Dionysius, much older than the
seventy who deposed the Samosatene, of whom
one was of Rome, and the other of Alexandria.
But a charge had been laid by some persons
against the Bishop of Alexandria before the
Bishop of Rome, as if he had said that the Son
was made, and not coessential with the Father.
And, the synod at Rome being indignant, the
Bishop of Rome expressed their united senti-
ments in a letter to his namesake. And so the
latter, in defence, wrote a book with the title
4 } 54, note 2. 5 Vid. Hilar, de Syn. 8i init. ; Epiph. Heer.
73. t2.
6 There were three Councils held against Paul of Samosata,
of the dates of 264, 269, and an intermediate year. The third
is spoken of in the text, which contrary to the opinion of Pagi,
S. Basnage, and Tillemont. Pearson fixes at 26"; or 266.
' of Refutation and Defence ; ' and thus he
writes to the other :
44. And? I wrote in another Letter a refutation
of the false charge which they bring against me, that
I deny that Christ is coessential with God. For though
1 say that I have not found or read this term any-
where in holy Scripture, yet my remarks which follow,
and which they have not noticed, are not inconsistent
with that belief. For I instanced a human production,
which is evidently homogeneous, and I observed that
•undeniably fathers differed from their children, only in
not being the same individuals ; otherwise there could .
be neither parents nor children. And my Letter, as I
said before, owing to present circumstances, I am unable
to produce, or I would have sent you the very words I
used, or rather a copy of it all ; which, if I have an
opportunity, I will do still. But I am sure from recollec-
tion, that I adduced many parallels of things kindred
with each other, for instance, that a plant grown from
seed or from root, was other than that from which it
sprang, and yet altogether one in nature with it ; and
that a stream flowing from a fountain, changed its
appearance and its name, for that neither the fountain
was called stream, nor the stream fountain, but both
existed, and that the fountain was as it were father, but
the stream was what was generated from the fountain.
45. Thus the Bishop. If then any one finds
fault with those who met at Nicsea, as if they
contradicted the decisions of their predecessors,
he might reasonably find fault also with the
seventy, because they did not keep to the
statements of their own predecessors; but such
were the Dionysii and the Bishops assembled
on that occasion at Rome. But neither these
nor those is it pious to blame ; for all were
charged with the embassy of Christ, and all
have given diligence against the heretics, and
the one party condemned the Samosatene, while
the other condemned the Arian heresy. And
rightly have both these and those written, and
suitably to the matter in hand. And as the
blessed Apostle, writing to the Romans, said,
' The Law is spiritual, the Law is holy, and the
commandment holy and just and good ' (Rom.
vii. 14, 12); and soon after, 'What the Law
could not do, in that it was weak ' (lb. viii. 3),
but wrote to the Hebrews, 'The Law has made
no one perfect' (Heb. vii. 19); and to the Gala-
tians, ' By the Law no one is justified ' (Gal. iii.
11), but to Timothy, 'The Law is good, if
a man use it lawfully ' (i Tim. i. 8) ; and
no one would accuse the Saint of inconsistency
and variation in writing, but rather would
admire how suitably he wrote to each, to teach
the Romans and the others to turn from the
letter to the spirit, but to instruct the Hebrews
and Galatians to place their hopes, not in the >
Law, but in the Lord who had given the Law ; ^
— so, if the Fathers of the two Councils made
difterent mention of the Coessential, we ought
not in any respect to differ from them, but
to investigate their meaning, and this will fully
7 Vid. p. 167, and a different translation, p. 187
474
DE SYNODIS.
shew us the agreement of both the Coun-
cils. For they who deposed the Samosatene,
took Coessential in a bodily sense, because
Paul had attempted sophistry and said, 'Un-
less Christ has of man become God, it follows
that He is Coessential with the Father; and
if so, of necessity there are three essences,
one the previous essence, and the other two
from it ;' and therefore guarding against this
they said with good reason, that Christ was
not Coessential^. For the Son is not re-
lated to the Father as he imagined. But the
Bishops who anathematized the Arian heresy,
understanding Paul's craft, and reflecting that
the word ' Coessentigil,' has not this mean-
ing when used of things immaterial 9, and es-
pecially of God, and acknowledging that the
Word was not a creature, but an offspring
from the essence, and that the Father's essence
was the origin and root and fountain of the
Son, and that he was of very truth His Father's
likeness, and not of different nature, as we
are, and separate from the Father, but that, as
being from Him, He exists as Son indivisible,
as radiance is with respect to Light, and know-
ing too the illustrations used in Dionysius's
case, the ' fountain,' and the defence of ' Co-
essential,' and before this the Saviour's say-
ing, symbolical of unity ^°, ' I and the Father
are one,' and ' he that hath seen Me hath
seen the Father ' (John x. 30, lb. xiv. 9), on
these grounds reasonably asserted on their
part, that the Son was Coessential. And
as, according to a former remark, no one
would blame the Apostle, if he wrote to the
Romans about the Law in one way, and to the
Hebrews in another ; in like manner, neither
would the present Bishops find fault with
the ancient, having regard to their interpre-
tation, nor again in view of theirs and of
the need of their so writing about the Lord,
would the ancient censure their successors.
Yes surely, each Council has a sufficient
reason for its own language ; for since the
Samosatene held that the Son was not before
8 This IS in fact the objection which Arius urges against the
Coessential, sitpr. \ 16, when he calls it the doctrine of Mani-
chaeus and Hieracas, vid. \ 16, note 11. The same objection is
protested against by S. Basil, contr. Eunom. i. ig. Hilar, de
Trin. iv. 4. Yet, while S. Basil agrees with Athan. in his account
of the reason ot the Council's rejection of the word, S. Hilary
on the contrary reports that Paul himself accepted it, i.e. in a
Sabellian sense, and therefore the Council rejected it. ' Male
homousion Samosatenus conlessus est, sed numquid melius Arii
negaverunt.' de Syn. 86.
9 Cf. Soz. iii. 18. The heretical party, starting with the notion
in which their heresy in all its shades consisted, that the Son was
a distinct being from the Father, concluded that ' like in essence '
was the only terra which would express the relation of the Son to
the Father. Here then the word ' coessential ' did just enable
the Catholics to join issue with them, as exactly expressing what
the Catholics wished to express, viz. that there was no such dis-
tinction between Them as made the term ' like ' necessary, but
that as material parent and offspring are individuals under one
common species, so the Eternal Father and Son are Persons under
one common individual essence. 10 \ ^g.
Mary, but received from her the c^^'i cf His^
being, therefore those who then met de-
posed him and pronounced him heretic ; but
concerning the Son's Godhead writing in sim-
plicity, they arrived not at accuracy concern-
ing the Coessential, but, as they understood
the word, so spoke they about it. For they
directed all their thoughts to destroy the device
of the Samosatene, and to shew that the Son
was before all things, and that, instead of
becoming God from man, He, being God,
had put on a servant's form, and being
Word, had become flesh, as John says (Phil,
ii. 7 ; Joh. i. 14). This is how they dealt
with the blasphemies of Paul ; but when
Eusebius, Arius, and their fellows said that
though the Son was before time, yet was
He made and one of the creatures, and as
to the phrase ' from God,' they did not
believe it in the sense of His being genuine
Son from Father, but maintained it as it
is said of the creatures, and as to the one-
ness ' of likeness ^ between the Son and the
Father, did not confess that the Son is like the
Father according to essence, or according to
nature as a son resembles his father, but
because of Their agreement of doctrines and
of teachings j nay, when they drew a line and
an utter distinction between the Son's essence
and the Father, ascribing to Him an origin
of being, other than the Father, and degrading
Him to the creatures, on this account the
Bishops assembled at Nicsea, with a view to
the craft of the parties so thinking, and as
bringing together the sense from the Scrip-
tures, cleared up the point, by affirming the
' Coessential ;' that both the true genuine-
ness of the Son might thereby be known,
and that to things originate might be ascribed
nothing in common with Him. For the pre-
cision of this phrase detects their pretence,
whenever they use the phrase ' from God,'
and gets rid of all the subtleties with which
diey seduce the simple. For whereas they
contrive to put a sophistical construction on
all other words at their will, this phrase only,
as detecting their heresy, do they dread ; which
the Fathers set down as a bulwarks against
their irreligious notions one and all.
46. Let then all contention cease, nor
' TT)c TT\% 6/iioiu>a'£us ivoTiyra.'. and so pp. 163, note 9, 165, 166.
And Basil. TavTOTTjra nrjs (|)u(r€a)S, Ep. 8. 3 : [but] TavTOTijra ttjs
oiicrias. Cyril in Joan. lib. iii. c. v. p. 302. [cf. ^a.v^oov(J^.ov,
p. 315, note 6] It is uniformly asserted by the Catholics that the
Father's godhead, Seonjs, is the Son's ; e.g. ittfr. \ 52 ; snpr.
p. 329 b, line 8 ; p 333, note 5 ; Oral. i. 49 fin. ii. § 18. § 73. lin.
iii. I 26; iii. \ 5 fin. iii. } 53; fi.ia.v rJji/ ScdrrjTa xal to \&iov rijy
ovtrias Tov Trarpo's. i 56 siipr. p. 84 fin. vid. \ 52. note. This is an
approach to the doctrine of the Una Res, defined in the fourth
Lateran Council [in 1215, see Harnack Dogmg. iii. 447, note, and
on the doctrine of the Greek Fathers, Prolegg. ch. ii. \ 3 (2) b.]
2 Vid. Epiph. Har. 73. 9 fin. 3 { 23, note 3.
4 (TriTeCxio-fxa ; in like manner cruvSe(Tixov TriVrews. Epiph.
Ancor. 6 ; cf. Hcer. 69. 70; Ambros. de Fid. iii. is,.
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA.
475
let us any longer conflict, though the Coun-
cils have differently taken the phrase 'Co-
essential,' for we have already assigned
a . sufficient defence of them ; and to it
the following may be added : — We have not
derived the word ' Unoriginate ' from Scrip-
ture, (for no where does Scripture call God
Unoriginate,) yet since it has many authorities
in its favour. I was curious about the term, and
found that it too has different senses s. Some,
for instance, call what is, but is neither gener-
ated, nor has any personal cause at all, un-
originate ; and others, the uncreate. As then
a person, having in view the former of these
senses, viz. ' that which has no personal cause,'
might say that the Son was not unoriginate,
yet would not blame any one whom he per-
ceived to have in view the other meaning,
' not a work or creature but an eternal off-
spring,' and to affirm accordingly that the Son
was unoriginate, (for both speak suitably with
a view to their own object); so, even granting
that the Fathers have spoken variously con-
cerning the Coessential, let us not dispute
about it, but take what they deliver to us
in a religious way, when especially their anxiety
was directed in behalf of religion.
47. Ignatius, for instance, who was appointed
Bishop in Antioch after the Apostles, and
became a martyr of Christ, writes concerning
the Lord thus : ' There is one physician, fleshly
and spiritual, originate and unoriginate V God
in man, true Hfe in death, both from Mary and
from God ;' whereas some teachers who fol-
lowed Ignatius, write in their turn, ' One is
the Unoriginate, the Father, and one the
genuine Son from Him, true offspring. Word
and Wisdom of the Father ?.' If therefore we
5 [In this passage the difficulties and confusion which surround
the terms ayeVijros and ayeVKijro? {supr. p. 149, &c.) come to a
head. The question is (assuming, as proved by Lightfoot, the
validity of the distinction of the two in Athan.) which word is to
be read here. The MSS. are divided throughout between the two
readings, but it is clear (so Lightf. and Zahn on Ign. Eph. 7) that
one word alone is in view throughout the present passage. That
word, then, is pronounced by Liglitf., partly on the strength of the
quotation from the unnamed teachers {in/r. note 7), partly on the
ground of a reference to § 26 (see note 10 there), to be a.yevvrjio<;.
With all deference to so great an authority, I cannot hesitate to
pronounce for a-j/e'i/ijTOS. (i.) The parallelism of the two senses
with the third and fourth senses of dyev. Orat. i. 30. is almost
decisive by itself. (2.) Ath.'s explanation of Ignatius, viz. that
Christ is yeVrjTos ok account of the flesh i^v^ would have referred
yivvy\TO<: to His Essence, Orat. i. 56, certainly not to the flesh),
while as Son and Word He is distinct from yiv-r\Ta. and Tronj^ara,
is even more decisive. (3.) His explanation § 46, sub fin. that
the Son is a.ykv-HTO'i because He is aitiov yevvqijia would lose all
sense if oye'vrr)TOS were read. As a matter of fact, ayei/i/ijTO? is the
specific, ayeVTjToe the generic term : the former was not applicable
to the Eternal Son ; the latter was, except in the first of the two
senses distinguished in the text : a sense, however, more properly
coming under the specific idea of iye'i'i'TjTOs. This was the ambi-
guity which made the similarity of the two words so dangerous
a weapon in Arian hands. The above note does not of course
affect the true reading of ]gn. £/h. 7, as to which Lightfoot and
Zahn speak with authority : but it seems clear that Athan., how-
ever mistakenly, quotes Ign. with the reading aye'iTjTOs.]
6 Ign. ad Eph. [Lightf. Ign. p. 90, Zahn Pair. Apoit. ii.
P. Sl8«l
7 Not known, but cf. Clement. Strom. vL 7. p. 769. ev u.\v to
have hostile feelings towards these writers,
then have we right to quarrel with the Coun-
cils ; but if, knowing their faith in Christ, we
are persuaded that the blessed Ignatius was
right in writing that Christ was originate
on account of the flesh (for He became flesh),
yet unoriginate, because He is not in the
number of things made and originated, but
Son from Father ; and if we are aware too that
those who have said that the Unoriginate is
One, meaning the Father, did not mean to
lay down that the Word was originated and
made, but that the Father has no personal cause,
but rather is Himself Father of Wisdom, and in
Wisdom has made all things that are origin-
ated ; why do we not combine all our Fathers
in religious belief, those who deposed the
Samosatene as well as those who proscribed
the Arian heresy, instead of making distinc-
tions between them and refusing to entertain
a right opinion of them ? I repeat, that those,
in view of the sophistical explanation of
the Samosatene, wrote, ' He is not coessen-
tial^;' and these, with an apposite meaning,
said that He was. For myself, I have written
these brief remarks, from my feeling towards
persons who were religious to Christ-ward ;
but were it possible to come by the Epistle
which we are told that the former wrote, I con-
siderwe should find furthergrounds for the afore-
said proceeding of those blessed men. For it
is right and meet thus to feel, and to maintain
a good conscience toward the Fathers, if we
be not spurious children, but have received
the traditions from them, and the lessons of
religion at their hands.
48. Such then, as we confess and believe,
being the sense of the Fathers, proceed we
even in their company to examine once more
the matter, calmly and with a kindly sympathy,
with reference to what has been said before,
viz. whether the Bishops collected at Nicaea
do not really prove to have thought aright.
For if the Word be a work and foreign to the
Father's essence, so that He is separated from
the Father by the difference of nature, He
cannot be one in essence with Him, but rather
He is homogeneous by nature with the works,
though He surpass them in grace 9. On the
other hand, if we confess that He is not a
work but the genuine offspring of the Father's
essence, it would follow that He is inseparable
from the Father, being connatural, because He
is begotten from Him. And being such, good
reason He should be called Coessential.
ayeVnjTOi', 6 jravrOKpaTiop Sebs, tv 6e icai to irpoyevnjSei' St ov t4
woi'Ta eyeVero, KoX X'^P'-'' ivtoO eyeVero ovhi ev,
8 [On the subject of the rejection of the biioovaiov at this
Council of Antioch, see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3(2) b.]
9 De Deer. § i.
476
DE SYNODIS.
Next, if the Son be not such from participa-
tion, but is in His essence the Father's Word
and Wisdom, and this essence is the offspring
of the Father's essence ^°, and its Hkeness as
the radiance is of the light, and the Son says,
' I and the Father are One,' and, ' he that hath
seen Me, hath seen the Father ' (John x. 30 ;
xiv. 9), how must we understand these words ?
or how shall we so explain them as to pre-
serve the oneness of the Father and the Son ?
Now as to its consisting in agreement' of
doctrines, and in the Son's not disagreeing
with the Father, as the Arians say, such an
interpretation is a sorry one ; for both the
Saints, and still more Angels and Archangels,
have such an agreement with God, and there
is no disagreement among them. For he
who disagreed, the devil, was beheld to
fall from the heavens, as the Lord said.
Therefore if by reason of agreement the Father
and the Son are one, there would be things
originated which had this agreement with God,
and each of these might say, ' I and the Father
are One.' But if this be absurd, and so it
truly is, it follows of necessity that we must
conceive of Son's and Father's oneness in the
way of essence. For things originate, though
they have an agreement with their Maker, yet
possess it only by influence % and by partici-
pation, and through the mind; the transgres-
sion of which forfeits heaven. But the Son,
being an offspring from the essence, is one by
essence, Himself and the Father that begat
Him.
49. This is why He has equality with the
Father by titles expressive of unity 3, and what
is said of the Father, is said in Scripture of
the Son also, all but His being called Father 4.
For the Son Himself said, ' All things that the
Father hath are Mine ' (John xvi. 15) ; and He
says to the Father, ' All Mine are Thine, and
Thine are Mine' (John xvii. 10), — as for in-
stance t*, the name God; for 'the Word was
God;' — Almighty, 'Thus saith He that is, and
that was, and that is to come, the Almighty '
(John i. I ; Apoc. i. 8) : — the being Light, ' I
am,' He says, 'the Light' (John viii. 12): —
the Operative Cause, ' All things were made
by Him,' and, ' whatsoever I see the Father
do, I do also' (John i. 3; v. 19) : — the being
'° § 51, note. * § 23, note 3, yet vid. Hipp, contr. Noet. 7.
* Kif>)crei vid. Cyril, contr. Jul. viii. p. 274. Greg. Nyss. de
Horn. Op. p. 87. 3 § 45.
4 By 'the Son being equal to the Father,' is but meant that
He is His ' exact image ; ' it does not imply any distinction
of essence. Cf. Hil. de Syn. 73. But this implies some exception,
for else He would not be like or equal, but the same. ibid. 72.
Hence He is the Fathers image in all things except in being the
Father, TT)\y\v t^s dye»'r>j(rias icat nljs TrarpoTTjros. Damasc. de
Imag. iii. i8. p. 354. vid. also Basil, contr. Eun. ii. 28 ; Theod.
Inconfus. p. 91 ; Basil. Ep. 38. 7 fin. [Througli missing this point
the] Arians asked why the Son was not the beginning of a Q^oyovia..
Supr. p. 319 a, note i. vid. infr. note 8.
4» Vid. Orat. iii. S a..
Everlasting, * His eternal power and godhead,'
and, ' In the beginning was the Word,' and,
' He was the true Light, which lighteth every
man that cometh into the world ; ' — the being
Lord, for, ' The Lord rained fire and brimstone
from the Lord,' and the Father says, ' I am
the Lord,' and, ' Thus saith the Lord, the
Almighty God ;' and of the Son Paul speaks
thus, 'One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all
things' (Rom. i. 20 ; John i. i ; ib. 9; Gen. xix.
24; Isa. xlv. 5; Am. v. 16 ; i Cor. viii. 6). And
on the Father Angels wait, and again the Son
too is worshipped by them, ' And let all the
Angels of God worship Him;' and He is said
to be Lord of Angels, for ' the Angels minis-
tered unto Him,' and ' the Son of Man shall
send His Angels.' The being honoured as
the Father, for ' that they may honour the
Son,' He says, ' as they honour the Father ; '
— being equal to God, ' He counted it not a
prize to be equal with God ' (Heb. i. 6 ; Matt,
iv. II ; xxiv. 31 ; John v. 23 ; Phil. ii. 6) : —
the being Truth from the True, and Life from
the Living, as being truly from the Fountain,
even the Father ; — the quickening and raising
the dead as the Father, for so it is written in the
Gospel. And of the Father it is written, ' The
Lord thy God is One Lord,' and, ' The God of
gods, the Lord, hath spoken, and hath called
the earth ; ' and of the Son, ' The Lord God
hath shined upon us,' and, ' The God of gods
shall be seen in Sion.' And again of God,
Isaiah says, ' Who is a God like unto Thee,
taking away iniquities and passing over un-
righteousness?' (Deut. vi. 4; Ps. 1. I ; cxviii.
27; Ixxxiv. 7,LXX.; Mic.vii. 18). ButtheSon
said to whom He would, ' Thy sins are forgiven
thee;' for instance, when, on the Jews mur-
muring, He manifested the remission by His
act, saying to the paralytic, ' Rise, take up thy
bed, and go unto thy house.' And of God
Paul says, ' To the King eternal ; ' and again
of the Son, David in the Psalm, ' Lift up your
gates, O ye rulers, and be ye lift up ye ever-
lasting doors, and the King of glory shall
come in.' And Daniel heard it said, ' His
Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom, and His
Kingdom shall not be destroyed' (Matt. ix. 5 ;
Mark ii. 1 1 ; i Tim. i. 1 7 ; Ps. xxiv. 7 ; Dan.
iv. 3 ; vii. 14). And in a word, all that you
find said of the Father, so much will you find
said of the Son, all but His being Father, as
has been said.
50. If then any think of other beginning, and
other Father, considering the equality of these
attributes, it is a mad thought. But if, since
the Son is from the Father, all that is the
Father's is the Son's as in an Image and
Expression, let it be considered dispassion-
ately, whether an essence foreign from the
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA.
477
Father's essence admit of such attributes; and
whether such a one be other in nature and
alien in essence, and not coessential with
the Father. For we must take reverent heed,
lest transferring what is proper to the Father
to' what is unlike Him in essence, and ex-
pressing the Father's godhead by what is un-
like in kind and alien in essence, we introduce
another essence foreign to Him, yet capable
of the properties of the first essence s, and lest
we be silenced by God Himself, saying, ' My
glory I will not give to another,' and be dis-
covered worshipping this alien God, and be
accounted such as were the Jews of that day,
who said, 'Wherefore dost Thou, being a man,
make Thyself God?' referring, the while, to
another source the things of the Spirit, and
blasphemously saying, ' He casteth out devils
through Beelzebub ' (Isa. xlii. 8 ; John x. 33 ;
Luke xi. 15). But if this is shocking, plainly
the Son is not unlike in essence, but coes-
sential with the Father; for if what the
Father has is by nature the Son's, and the
Son Himself is from the Father, and because
of this oneness of godhead and of nature
He and the Father are one, and He that
hath seen the Son hath seen the Father,
reasonably is He called by the Fathers ' Co-
essential ; ' for to what is other in essence, it
belongs not to possess such prerogatives.
51. And again, if, as we have said before,
the Son is not such by participation, but, while
all things originated have by participation
the grace of God, He is the Father's Wisdom
and Word of which all things partake^, it
follows that He, being the deifying and en-
lightening power of the Father, in which all
things are deified and quickened, is not alien
in essence from the Father, but coessential.
For by partaking of Him, we partake of the
Father; because that the Word is the Fa-
ther's own. Whence, if He was Himself too
from participation, and not from the Father
His essential Godhead and Image, He would
not deify 7, being deified Himself. For it is
not possible that He, who merely possesses
from participation, should impart of that par-
taking to others, since what He has is not His
own, but the Giver's ; and what He has re-
ceived, is barely the grace sufficient for Him-
self. However, let us fairly examine the reason
why some, as is said, decline the ' Coes-
sential,' whether it does not rather shew that
5 Aiianism was in the dilemma of denying Christ's divinity, or
introducing a second God. The Arians proper went off on the
former side of the alternative, the Semi-Arians on the latter ; and
Athan., as here addressing the Semi Arians, insists on the greatness
of the latter error. This of course was the objection which at-
tached to the words o/xoioiio-iov, an-apoAAaKT05 eiKwc, &c., when
disjoined from the ofioov<riov; and Eusebius's language, sufr.
p. 75, note 7, shews us that it is not an imaginary one.
*> De Deer. § lo. p. 15, note 4. 7 «e€07roij)o-e Orat. ii.
§ 70. de Deer. § 14.
the Son is coessential with the Father. They
say then, as you have written, that it is
not right to say that the Son is coessential
with the Father, because he who speaks of
' coessential ' speaks of three, one essence
pre-existing, and that those who are generated
from it are coessential : and they add, * If
then the Son be coessential with the Father,
then an essence must be previously sup-
posed, from which they have been gene-
rated ; and that the One is not Father and
the Other Son, but they are brothers together^.'
As to all this, though it be a Greek interpreta-
tion, and what comes from them does not bind
us 9, still let us see whether those things which
are called coessential and are collateral,
as derived from one essence presupposed, are
coessential with each other, or with the
essence from which they are generated. For
if only with each other, then are they other in
essence and unlike, when referred to that
essence which generated them; for other in
essence is opposed to coessential ; but if
each be coessential with the essence which
generated them, it is thereby confessed that
what is generated from any thing, is co-
essential with that which generated it ; and
there is no need of seeking for three essences,
but merely to seek whether it be true that this
is from that'°. For should it happen thai
there were not two brothers, but that only one
had come of that essence, he that was gene-
rated would not be called alien in essence,
merely because there was no other fK>m the
essence than he; but though alone, he must
be coessential with him that begat him. For
what shall we say about Jephtha's daughter;
because she was only-begottMi, and ' he had
not,' says Scripture, ' other child ' (Jud. xi. 34) ;
and again, concerning the widow's son, whom
the Lord raised from the dead, because he
too had no brother, but was only-begotten,
was on that account neither of these co-
essential with him that begat ? Surely they were,
for they were children, and this is a property of
children with reference to their parents. And
8 Cf. supr. p. 314, note i, Cyr. Tliesaur. pp. 22, 23.
9 Cf. p. 1C9, note 4" [and on ov<ji.a. as a philosophical and theo-
logical term, ProUgg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) b. On the divergence of its
tbeologicai use from its philosophical sense, see] Anastasius,
Hodeg. 6. and Theorian, Legat. ad Arm. pp. 441, 2. Socr. iii. 25.
Damascene, speaking of the Jacubite use of <i)U(TisanduTr6(rTao-t? says,
'Who of holy men ever thus spoke? unless ye introduce to us your
S. Aristotle, as a thirteenth Apostle, and prefer the idolater to the
divinely inspired.' cont. Jacob. 10. p. 399. and so again Leontius,
speaking of Philoponus, who from the Monophysite confusion of
nature and hypostasis was led into Tritheism. ' He thus argued,
taking his start from Aristotelic principles ; for Aristotle says that
there are of individuals particular substances as well as one com-
mon.' De Sect. v. fin.
10 The argument, when drawn out, is virtually this : if, be-
cause two subjects are coessential, a third is pre-supposed of which
they partake, then, since either of these two is coessential with
that of which both partake, a new third must be supposed in
which it and the pre-existing substance partake and thus an
infinite series of things coessential must be supposed. Vid. Basil.
Ep- 52. n. 2. [Cf. Aiistot. Frag. 183, p. 1509 b 23.]
.478
DE SYNODIS.
in like manner also, when the Fathers said
that the Son of God was from His essence,
reasonably have they spoken of Him as co-
essential. For the like property has the
radiance compared with the light. Else it
follows that not even the creation came out
of nothing. For whereas men beget with
passion', so again they work upon an existing
subject matter, and otherwise cannot make.
But if we do not understand creation in a
human way^, when we attribute it to God,
much less seemly is it to understand genera-
tion in a human way, or to give a corporeal
sense to Coessential ; instead of receding
from things originate, casting away human
images, nay, all things sensible, and ascend-
ing 3 to the Father^, lest we rob the Father of
the Son in ignorance, and rank Him among
His own creatures.
52. Further, if, in confessing Father and
Son, we spoke of two beginnings or two Gods,
as Marcion and Valentinuss, or said that the
Son had any other mode of godhead, and was
not the Image and Expression of the Father,
as being by nature born from Him, then He
might be considered unlike ; for such essences
are altogether unlike each other. But if we
acknowledge that the Father's godhead is one
and sole, and that of Him the Son is the Word
and Wisdom ; and, as thus believing, are far
from speaking of two Gods, but understand
the oneness of the Son with the Father to be,
not in likeness of their teaching, but according
to essence and in truth, and hence speak not
of two Gods but of one God ; there being but
one Form^ of Godhead, as the Light is one
and the Radiance ; (for this was seen by the
Patriarch Jacob, as Scripture says, ' The sun
rose upon him when the Form of God passed
by,' Gen. xxxii. 31, LXX.) ; and be holding this,
and understanding of whom He was Son and
Image, the holy Prophets say, ' The Word of
the Lord came to me ; ' and recognising the
Father, who was beheld and revealed in Him,
they made bold to say, ' The God of our fathers
I Orat. i. § 28.
' Vid. de Deer. ? ii, note 6: also Cyril, Thesaur. iv. p. 29 :
Basil, contr. Eun. ii. 23 : Hil. de Syn. 17. 3 Naz. Orat. 28. 2.
4 S. Basil says in like manner that, though God is Father
Kupc'ws properly, supr. p. 156, note i, 157, note 6, 171, note 5, 319.
note 3), yet it comes to the same thing if we were to say that He
is TpoTTiKws and ex ^lera^opas, figuratively, such, contr. Eun. ii. 24 ;
ye'vnjcris implies two things, — passion, and relationship, otKetucri?
^u(76<o5 ; accordingly we must take the latter as an indication 01
the divine sense of the term. Cf. also siipr. p. 158, note 7, p. 322,
Orat. ii. 32, iii. 18, 67, and Basil, contr. Eunont. ii. 17 ; Hil. de
Trin. iv. 2. Vid. also Athan. cid Serap. i. 20. and Basil. Ep. 38.
n. 5. and what is said of the office of faith in each of these.
5 Supr p. 167, note 7, and p. 307.
6 eyoj 01/T05 ei'Sovs SeoTijros ." for the word eT5o5, cf. Orat. iii. 16
is generally applied to the Son, as in what follows, and is synony-
mous [?] with hypostasis ; but it is remarkable that here it is
almost synonymous with ova-Ca or c^veris. Indeed in one sense
nature, substance, and hypostasis, are all synonymous, i.e. as one
and all denoting the Una Res, which is Almighty God. The ap-
parent confusion is useful as reminding us of this great truth ; vid.
lote 8, in/r.
hath appeared unto me, the God of Abraham,
and Isaac, and Jacob' (Exod. iii. i6) ; this
being so, wherefore scruple we to call Him
coessential who is one with the Father, and
appears as doth the Father, according to
likeness and oneness of godhead? For if,
as has been many times said. He has it not to
be proper to the Father's essence, nor to re-
semble, as a Son, we may well scruple : but if
this be the illuminating and creative Power,
specially proper to the Father, without Whom
He neither frames nor is known (for all
things consist through Him and in Him) ;
wherefore, perceiving the fact, do we decline
to use the phrase conveying it? For what
is it to be thus connatural with the Father, but
to be one in essence with Him ? for God
attached not to Him the Son from without ?,
as needing a servant ; nor are the works on
a level with the Creator, and honoured as He
is, or to be thought one with the Father. Or
let a man venture to make the distinction, that
the sun and the radiance are two lights, or
different essences ; or to say that the radiance
accrued to it over and above, and is not a
simple and pure offspring from the sun ;
such, that sun and radiance are two, but
the light one, because the radiance is an off-
spring from the Sun. But, whereas not more
divisible, nay less divisible is the nature^ of
the Son towards the Father, and the godhead
not accruing to the Son, but the Father's god-
head being in the Son, so that he that hath
seen the Son hath seen the Father in Him ;
wherefore should not such a one be called
Coessential?
53. Even this is sufficient to dissuade you
from blaming those who have said that the
Son was coessential with the Father, and
yet let us examine the very term ' Coessen-
tial,' in itself, by way of seeing whether we
ought to use it at all, and whether it be a
proper term, and is suitable to apply to the
Son, For you know yourselves, and no one
can dispute it, that Like is not predicated of
essence, but of habits, and qualities ; for in
the case of essences we speak, not of likeness,
but of identity. Man, for instance, is said to
be like man, not in essence, but according to
habit and character ; for in essence men are
of one nature. And again, man is not said to
be unlike dog, but to be of different nature.
7 De Deer. % 31.
8 [<^ jo-ts is here (as the apodosis of the clause shows) as well as
in the next section, used as a somewhat more vague equivalent for
ovcria, not, as Newman contends in an omitted note, for 'person,'
a use which is scarcely borne out by the (no doubt somewhat
fluctuating) senses of </>u<rts in the passages quoted by hira from
Alexander (in Theod. J/.E. i. 4, cf. Origen's use of oucrta, Prolegg.
ch. ii. § 3 (2) a) and Cyril c. Nest. iii. p. 91. (/>v<ri? and ovair —
neariy equivalent in the manifesto of Basil of Ancyra, whom
has in view here, see Epiph. Hcer. 73. 12 — 22.]
<rta arc
Ath.
COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUClA.
479
Accordingly while the former are of one nature
and coessential, the latter are different in
both. Therefore, in speaking of Like accord-
ing to essence, we mean like by participation ;
(for Likeness is a quality, which may attach to
essence), and this would be proper to creatures,
for they, by partaking, are made like to God.
For 'when He shall appear,' says Scripture,
* we shall be like Him ' (i John iii. 2), like,
that is, not in essence but in sonship, which
we shall partake from Him. If then ye speak
■of the Son as being by participation, then
indeed call Him Like-in-essence ; but thus
spoken of, He is not Truth, nor Light at all,
nor in nature God. For things which are
from participation, are called like, not in
reality, but from resemblance to reality; so
that they may swerve, or be taken from those
who share them. And this, again, is proper to
creatures and works. Therefore, if this be out
of place, He must be, not by participation,
but in nature and truth Son, Light, Wisdom,
God ; and being by nature, and not by sharing.
He would properly be called, not Like-in-
essence, but Coessential. But what would
not be asserted, even in the case. of others (for
the Like has been shewn to be inapphcable to
essences), is it not folly, not to say violence, to
put forward in the case of the Son, instead of
the ' Coessential ? '
54. This is why the Nicene Council was
correct in writing, what it was becoming to
say, that the Son, begotten from the Father's
essence, is coessential with Him. And if
we too have been taught the same thing, let
us not fight with shadows, especially as know-
ing, that they who have so defined, have made
this confession of faith, not to misrepresent
the truth, but as vindicating the truth and
religiousness towards Christ, and also as de-
stroying the blasphemies against Him of the
Ario-maniacs. For this must be considered
and noted carefully, that, in using un like-in-
essence, and other-in-essence, we signify not
the true Son, but some one of the creatures,
and an introduced and adopted Son, which
pleases the heretics ; but when we speak un-
controversially of the Coessential, we sig-
nify a genuine Son born of the Father ;
though at this Christ's enemies often burst
with rage 9. What then I have learned myself,
and have heard men of judgment say, I have
written in few words ; but do you, remaining
on the foundation of the Apostles, and holding
fast the traditions of the Fathers, pray that
now at length all strife and rivalry may cease,
and the futile questions of the heretics may be
condemned, and all logomachy ' ; and the
guilty and murderous heresy of the Arians may
disappear, and the truth may shine again in
the hearts of all, so that all every where may
'say the same thing' (i Cor. i. 10), and think
the same thing'', and that, no Arian con-
tumelies remaining, it may be said and con-
fessed in every Church, ' One Lord, one faith,
one baptism' (Eph. iv. 5), in Christ Jesus our
Lord, through whom to the Father be the
glory and the strength, unto ages of ages.
Amen,
Postscript.
55. After I had written my account of the
Councils 3, I had information that the most
irrehgious+ Constantius had sent Letters to
the Bishops remaining in Ariminum ; and I
have taken pains to get copies of them from
true brethren and to send them to you, and
also what the Bishops answered ; that you
may know the irreligious craft of the Emperor,
and the firm and unswerving purpose of the
Bishops towards the truth.
Interpretation of the Letter y
Constantius, Victorious and Triumphant, Augustus,
to all Bishops who are assembled at Ariminum.
That the divine and adorable Law is our chief care,
your excellencies are not ignorant ; but as yet we have
been unable lo receive the twenty Bishops sent by your
wisdom, and charged with the legation from you, for
we are pressed by a necessary expedition against the
Barbarians ; and as ye know, it beseems to Iiave the
soul clear from every care, when one handles the
matters of the Divine Law. Therefore we have ordered
the Bishops to await our return at Adrianople ; that,
when all public affairs are well arranged, then at length
we may hear and weigh their suggestions. Let it not
then be grievous to your constancy to await their return,
that, when they come back with our answer to you,
ye may be able to bring matters to a close which so
deeply affect the well-being of the Catholic Church.
This was what the Bishops received at the
hands of three emissaries.
Reply of the Bishops.
The letter of your humanity we have received, most
God-beloved Lord Emperor, which reports that, on
account of stress of public affairs, as yet you have been
unable to attend to our deputies ; and in which you com-
» p. 171, note 6.
' And so Tats Aoyofiax'ttis, Basil de Sp. S. n. i6. It is used
with an allusion to the fight against the Word, as xP'o'To/iaxeii'
and Seo/iaxei;/. Thus Koyofi-axeiv /xeAe7TJ(TavTes, Kal AotTrbi/ nveu-
(jLaTO/JLaxoiivTei, e<rovTai ixer okiyov vexpol TJj oAoyio. Seynp. iv. i.
2 Cf. Hil. de Syn. 77, and appendix, note 3, also supr.^ p. 303,
and note. The onoouo-ioi' was not imposed upon Ursacius and
Valens, a.d. 347, by Popo Julius ; nor in the Council of Aquileia
in 3S1, was it oflered by S. Ambrose to Palladiusand Secundianus.
S. Jerome's account of the apology made by the Fathers of Arimi-
num is of the same kind. ' We thought,' they said, ' the sense
corresponded to the words, nor in the Church of God, where there
is simplicity, and a pure confession, did we fiar that one thing
would be concealed in the heart, another uttered by the lips. We
were deceived by our good opinion of the bad.' ad Lucif. 19.
3 §11, note 7. 4 § 12, note 2.
5 These two Letters are both in Socr. ii. 37. And the latter is
in 'Theod. H. E. ii. 15. p. 878. in a different version from the Latin
original.
48o
DE SYNODIS.
mand us to await their return, until your godliness shall
be advised by them of what we have defined conformably
to our ancestors. However, we now profess and aver
at once by these presents, that we shall not recede from
our purpose, as we also instructed our deputies. We
ask then that you will with serene countenance com-
mand these letters of our mediocrity to be read ; but
also that you will graciously receive those, with which
we charged our deputies. This however your gentle-
ness comprehends as well as we, that great grief
and sadness at present prevail, because that, in these
your most happy days, so many Churches are without
Bishops. And on this account we again request your
humanity, most God-beloved Lord Emperor, that, if it
please your religiousness, you would command us, before
the severe winter weather sets in, to return to our
Churches, that so we may be able, unto God Almighty
and our Lord and Saviour Christ, His Only-begotten
Son, to fulfil together with our flocks our wonted
prayers in behalf of your imperial sway, as indeed we
have ever performed them, and at this time make
them.
Additional Note.
[The ' list of Sirmian confessions ' published by New-
man as an Excursus to the de Synodis is omitted here.
It will be found printed as 'Appendix iii.'to \i\%Arians
of the Fourth Century.
The Excursus on a Creed ascribed (at the Council of
Ephesus, see Hard. Cone. i. 1640, Hahn. § 83 ; Routh
Rell. iii. 367) to the 70 bishops who condemned
Paul of Samosata, at Antioch a.d. 269, and containing
the formula 6fi.oovffiov (against this, supr. §§ 43 — 47),
is also omitted, as bearing only very indirectly on the
de Synodis. Caspari Alte und Neue Quellen (xi), p. 161,
has thoroughly investigated the Confession since New-
man wrote, and has proved (what Newman half sus-
pected) that the document is of Apollinarian origin.
As Caspari was unaware of Newman's discussion, this
result comes as the result of two independent investi-
gations pursued on very different lines. ]
TOMUS AD ANTIOCHENOS.
The word ' tome ' (rofios) means either a section, or, in the case of such a document as
that before us, a concise statement. It is commonly applied to synodical letters (cf the ' Tome '
of Leo, A.D. 450, to Flavian).
Upon the accession of juhan (November, 361) the Homoean ascendancy which had marked
the last six years of Constantius collapsed. A few weeks after his accession (Feb. 362) an
edict recalled all the exiled Bishops. On Feb. 21 Athanasius re-appeared in Alexandria. He
was joined there by Lucifer of Cagliari and Eusebius of Vercellae, who were in exile in Upper
Egypt. Once more free, he took up the work of peace which had busied him in the last years
of his exile (see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 9). With a heathen once more on the throne of the C^sars,
there was everything to sober Christian party spirit, and to promise success to the council which
met under Athanasius during the ensuing summer. Among the twenty-one bishops who formed
the assembly the most notable are Eusebius of Vercellae, Asterius of Petra, and Dracontius of
Lesser Hermopolis and Adelphius of Onuphis, the friends and correspondents of Athanasius.
The rest, with the exception of Anatolius of Euboea, were all from Egypt and Marmarica, and
(probably three only) from S.W. Asia. The council (Newman, Arians, v. i. ; Gwatkin, Stud. p. 205,
Kriiger, Lucif. 45 — ^53, was occupied with four problems : (i) The terms on which communion
should be vouchsafed to those Arians who desired to re-unite (§§ 3, 8). They were to be asked
for nothing beyond the Nicene test, and an express anathema against Arianism, including the doc-
trine that the Holy Spirit is a Creature. The latter point had been rising into prominence of late,
and had called forth from Athanasius his four Discourses to Serapion of Thmuis. The em-
phatic way in which the point is pressed in § 3, implies that an attempt was being made in
some quarter to subscribe the Nicene Creed, while maintaining the Arian position with regard
to the Holy Spirit. The language of § 3 cannot be reconciled with the hypothesis (Gwatkin,
Studies, 233), that no formal requirement was made by this council on the subject. The person
aimed at was possibly Acacius, who {Serap. iv. 7) had treated the subject with levity, and yet
was now disposed to come to terms (as he did a year later, Socr. iii. 25). It is true that we
find the names of Macedonius and his followers (N.B. not Eleusius) in the number of the 59
who betook themselves to Liberius (Socr. iv. 12), and neither in their letter nor in his reply is
there any allusion to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit; and that Basil {Ep. 204), with the
sanction of Athanasius (cf below, Letters 62, 63), did not press the test upon those who were
otherwise orthodox. But the council of 362 has Syrian circumstances specially in view; and
however we may explain it, its language is too clear to be mistaken. (On the general sub-
ject, cf Letter 55.) (2) The Arian Christology also occupied the council (§ 7). The
integrity of Christ's human nature on the one hand, its perfect Union v/ith the Word on the
other, are clearly emphasised. This question had begun to come into prominent discussion in
several parts of the Christian world (e.g. at Corinth, see infr. Letter 59), and was soon to give
rise to the system of Apollinarius, who, however, it is interesting to note, was a party, by his
legates, to the present decision. (3) The state of the Church at Antioch was the most prac-
tical problem before the council. Meletius was returning to the presidency of the main body
of the Antiochene church, whose chief place of worship was the ' Palaea ' (§ 3). Since the de-
position of Eustathius {c. 330), the intransigent or ' protestant' body had been without a bishop,
and were headed by the respected presbyter Paulinus. Small in numbers, and dependent for
a church upon the good will of the Arians, they were yet strong in the unsullied orthodoxy of
their antecedents, in the sympathy of the West and of Athanasius himself, who had given
offence at Antioch in 346 by worshipping with them alone. Clearly the right course was that
they should reunite with the main body under Meletius, and this was what the council recom-
mended (§ 3), although, perhaps in deference to the more uncompromising spirits, the union is
treated {ib. and 4) as a return of the larger body to the smaller, instead of vice versa. (For the
sequel, see Prolegg. ubi supra.) (4) With the rivalry of parties at Antioch, a weighty question
of theological terminology was indirectly involved. The word vTroaracns had been used in the
Nicene anathema as a synonym of oiaia (see Excursus A, pp. 77 s^^. above), and in this sense
it was commonly used by Athanasius in agreement with the New Testament use of the word
VOL. IV. I i
482
TOMUS AD ANTIOCHENOS.
(Westcott on Heb. i. 3), with Dionysius of Rome, and with the West, to whom vnoa-Taa-is was
etymologically identified with ' Substantia ' their (perhaps imperfect) equivalent for ova-ia. On
the other hand, the general tendency of Eastern Theology had been to use vmicrTaa-is in the sense
of Subject or Person, for which purpose it expressed the idea of individual essence less
ambiguously than npoaoTrov. This was the use of the word adopted by Origen, Dionysius
Alex. (supr. de Sent. Dionys.), Alexander of Alexandria (in his letter Thdt. If.E. i. 4. p. 16,
1. 19), and by Athanasius himself in an earlier work (p. 90, supr.) At Antioch the
Eustathians appear to have followed the Nicene and Western usage, using the word to
emphasise the Individual Unity of God as against Arian or Subordinationist views, while the
Meletians protested against the Marcellian monarchianism by insisting on three Hypostases in
the Godhead. The contradiction was mainly verbal, the two parties being substantially at one as
to the doctrine, but varying in its expression. Hence the wise and charitable decision of the
council, which came naturally from one who, like Athanasius, could use either expression, though
he had come to prefer the Western to the Eastern use ^.
The Tome was carried to Antioch by the five bishops named at the beginning of § i, and
there subscribed by Paulinus and Karterius of Antaradus. As to its eff'ect among the friends
of Meletius our information is only inferential (see Gwatkin, Studies, p. 208). On the supposed
disciplinary legislation of this council in relation to the Syntagma DoctrincB, see Prolegg.
ch. ii. §§ 9,
N.B. The translation of the present tract as well as that of the ad Afros and of Letters
56, 59, 60, 61, was made independently of that by Dr. Bright in his Later Treatises of S.
Atha7iasiu} (see Prolegg. ch. i. § 2), but has been carefully collated with it, and in not a few
cases improved by its aid. For a fuller commentary on these pieces than has been possible in
this volume, the reader is referred to Dr. Bright's work.
'*■ It may be well to trace briefly the sense of these technical
terms, the history and significance of which is a forcible reminder
of the inability of Theology to bring the Infinite within the cate-
gories of the Finite, to do more than guard our Faith by pointing
out the paths which experience has shewn to lead to some false
limitation of the fulness of the Revelation of God in Christ.
The distinction (drawn out Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (2) b) between the
primary and secondary sense of oixria in Greek metaphysics does
not easily fit the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The ovcria com-
mon to Father and Son is not the name of a Species, as ' Man '
applies to Peter and Paul. But neither can the idea of npiorr)
ova-ia be reconciled with inherence in three distinct personal
existences. (Cf. supr. p. 409, note 7.)
But here the word vTrdtrTao'is comes in to help our imagination.
The word (see Socr. H.E. iii. 7. Westcott, ubi supr. and New-
man, Arians, App. 4), from various literal senses came to be
transferred to the philosophical vocabulary, doing duty as verbal
substantive not only for v(f>e(TTavai but for viroKel<T0ai, Like the
concrete vrroKeiixtvov it w.as applied (a) to matter as underlying
form, (b) to substance as underlying attributes. In this latter use
it served to distinguish npuirr) from Sevrepa oixria, expressing
moreover a complete self-contained existence in a way that ovo-ia
did not. When therefore the idea of personal individuality has to
be expressed, UTrocrTao-is is more suitable than ova-ia. But the
ambiguity of the latter word remains. Those who preferred to
speak of jiia uTroo-raa-ts thought of the Divine Essence rather as
irpioTT) ova-ia, and of One Personal God, with whom Father, Son,
and Spirit were each absolutely and fully identified (irepix'ip'IC's).
while with those who preferred rpeis ii7rocrTa<7-ei9 the idea of the
Divine ovaia approximated to SevTc'pa ova-ia, and guarded against
Tritheism solely by holding fast to the Monarchia of the Father.
The corrective to each position lay in the recognition of the other,
i.e. of its own incompleteness. (See further Prolegg. u6i supr.
and Zahn, Marcell. p. 87, sq.)
TOME OR SYNODAL LETTER
TO THE PEOPLE OF ANTIOCH.
To our beloved and much-desired fellow-
ministers Eusebius ', Lucifer^, Asterius3, Ky-
matius, and Anatolius, Athanasius and the
bishops present in Alexandria from Italy and
Arabia, Egypt and Libya ; Eusebius, Asterius,
Gaius, Agathus, Ammonius, Agathodaemon,
Dracontius, Adelphius, Hermaeon, Marcus,
Theodorus, Andreas, Paphnutius, another Mar-
cus, Zoilus, Menas, George, Lucius, Macarius
and the rest, all greeting in Christ.
We are persuaded that being ministers of
God and good stewards ye are sufficient to
order the affairs of the Church in every re-
spect. But since it has come to us, that many
who were formerly separated from us by
jealousy now wish for peace, while many also
having severed their connection with the Arian
madmen are desiring our communion, we think
it well to write to your courtesy what ourselves
and the beloved Eusebius and Asterius have
drawn up : yourselves being our beloved and
truly most-desired fellow-ministers. We rejoice
at the said tidings, and pray that even if any
be left still far from us, and if any appear
to be in agreement with the Arians, he may
promptly leave their madness, so that for the
future all men everywhere may say, ' One Lord,
I Eusebius of Vercellse, exiled {Hist. Ar. 33 ; A^. Fug. 4)
after Milan 355. See D.C.B. ii. 374 (93).
* Lucifer of Calaris : cf. Letters 50, 51, below, and Hist.
Ar. 33 ; Apol. Fug. 4.
3 The following are all the details that can be collected with
regard to the bishops named in the text. Asterius (Hist. Ar. 18
note) ; Kymatius of Paltus in Syria Prima (Apoi. Fug. 3 ; Hist.
Ar. s); Anatolius of Euboea (not in D.C.B.) ; Gaiius {Apoi. Fug. j;
Hist. Ar. 72, D.C.B. i. 387, No. 19??): Agathus, Hist. Ar. 72
(not in D.C.B.) ; Ammonius (see Hist. Ar. 72 sub.-fin. ; Ap. Fug.
7, Letter ^g. 7, and ?«/r. Appendix, note i as to names in D.C.B.);
Agathodaemon (Hist. Ar. ibid.); Dracontius and Adelphius
(Letters 49, 60) ; Hermaeon (Hermion in § 10) unknown, unless
the 'Hermes' of Hist. Ar. 72; Marcus (2), (cf. D.C.B iii. 825
(7) for works ascribed to one or the other) ; Paphnutius, (.^ji^.
Ar.yi; DC B. iv. 184(4)); Zoilus of Andropolib (Harduin, i-c,
suojure, identify him with the bishop of the Syrian Larissa, who
signs at Antioch in 363, Cone. i. 742; D.C.B. iv. laao); Andreas,
George, Lucius, Macarius, Menas, and Theodore, are unknown
and not in D.C.IJ. The names all recur (excepting those of George,
Lucius, Macarius), in § 10, where the sees are specified.
one faith 4.' For as the psalmist says, what
is so good or pleasant as for brethren to dwell
in unity s. But our dwelling is the Church, and
our mind ought to be the same. For thus we
believe that the Lord also will dwell with us,
who says, ' I will dwell with them and walk in
them ^,' and ' Here will I dwell for I have
a delight therein 7.' But by 'here' what is
meant but there where one faith and religion
is preached ?
2. Mission of Eusebius and Asterius.
We then of Egypt truly wished to go to you
along with our beloved Eusebius and Asterius,
for many reasons, but chiefly that we might
embrace your affection and together enjoy
the said peace and concord. But since, as we
declared in our other letters, and as ye may
learn from our fellow-ministers, the needs of
the church detain us, with much regret we
begged the same fellow-ministers of ours, Euse-
bius and Asterius, to go to you in our stead.
And we thank their piety in that although they
might have gone at once to their dioceses, they
preferred to go to you at all cost.s, on account
of the pressing need of the Church. They
therefore having consented, we consoled our-
selves with the consideration that you and they
being there, we all were present with you in
mind.
3. The ' Meletians^ to be acknowledged, and all
who renounce heresy, especially as to the Holy
Spirit.
As many then as desire peace with us, and
specially those who assemble in the Old
[Church] ^ and those again who are seceding
4 Eph. iv. 5. 5 See Ps. cxxxiii. i.
^ 2 Cor. vi. 16, and Lev. xxvi. 12. 7 Ps. cxxxii. 14.
^ 'El' Tjj iroAaiif , cf. Theodt. H.E. i. 3 : possibly the old Town
is meant, viz. the main part of Antioch on the left bank of the
Orontes, so called in distinction from the • New ' town of Seleucu
I 1 2
484
TOMUS AD ANTIOCHENOS.
from the Arians, do ye call to yourselves, and re-
ceive them as parents their sons, and welcome
them as tutors and guardians ; and unite them
to our beloved Paulinus and his people, with-
out requiring more from them than to ana-
thematise the Arian heresy and confess the
faith confessed by the holy fathers at Nicsea,
and to anathematise also those who say that
the Holy Spirit is a Creature and separate from
the Essence of Christ. For this is in truth
a complete renunciation of the abominable
heresy of the Arians, to refuse to divide the
Holy Trinity, or to say that any part of it
is a creature. For those who, while pretend-
ing to cite the faith confessed at Nicaea, ven-
ture to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, do nothing
more than in words deny the Arian heresy
while they retain it in thought. But let the
impiety of Sabellius and of Paul of Samosata
also be anathematised by all, and the madness
of Valentinian and Basilides, and the folly
of the Manichaeans. For if this be done, all
evil suspicion will be removed on all hands,
and the faith of the Catholic Church alone be
exhibited in purity.
4. The parties at Antioch to Jinite.
But that we, and they who have ever re-
mained in communion with us, hold this faith,
we think no one of yourselves nor any one else
is ignorant. But since we rejoice with all
those who desire re-union, but especially with
those that assemble in the Old [church], and
as we glorify the Lord exceedingly, as for all
things so especially for the good purpose of
these men, we exhort you that concord be
established with them on these terms, and, as
we said above, without further conditions, with-
out namely any further demand upon yourselves
on the part of those who assemble in the Old
[church], or Paulinus and his fellows propound-
ing anything else, or aught beyond the Nicene
definition.
5. 77ie creed of Sardica not an authorised for-
mula. Question of ' hypostasis.'
And prohibit even the reading or publica-
tion of the paper, much talked of by some, as
having been drawn up concerning the Faith at
the synod of Sardica. For the synod made no
definition of the kind. For whereas some de-
manded, on the ground that the Nicene synod
was defective, the drafting of a creed, and in
their haste even attempted it ^% the holy synod
Callinicus which occupied the Island in the river. The 'Old'
Church, or Church of the Apostles, was situated in the Old Town,
and was at present occupied by the orthodox party of Meletius.
The old orthodox party of Paulinus had only one small church
in the New Town, granted for their use out of respect for Paulinus
by the Arian bishop Euzoius (Socr. H.E. iii. g).
8a The draft is given by Theodt. H.E. li. 8; it insist! vehe-
mently on the ' (i»ne Hypostasis.'
assembled in Sardica was indignant, and de-
creed that no statement of faith should be
drafted, but that they should be content with
the Faith confessed by the fathers at Nicsea,
inasmuch as it lacked nothing but was full of
piety, and that it was undesirable for a second
creed to be promulged, lest that drafted at
Nicaea should be deemed imperfect, and
a pretext be given to those who were often
wishing to draft and define a creed. So that
if a man propound the above or any other
paper, stop them, and persuade them rather
to keep the peace. For in such men we per-
ceive no motive save only contentiousness.
For as to those whom some were blaming for
speaking of three Subsistences 9, on the ground
that the phrase is unscriptural and therefore
suspicious, we thought it right indeed to re-
quire nothing beyond the confession of Nic«a,
but on account of the contention we made
enquiry of them, whether they meant, like
the Arian madmen, subsistences foreign and
strange, and alien in essence from one another,
and that each Subsistence was divided apart
by itself, as is the case with creatures in general
and in particular with those begotten of men,
or like different substances, such as gold, silver,
or brass ; — or whether, like other heretics, they
meant three Beginnings and three Gods, by
speaking of three Subsistences.
They assured us in reply that they neither
meant this nor had ever held it. But upon
our asking them ' what then do you mean by
it, or why do you use such expressions?' they
replied, Because they believed in a Holy Trinity,
not a trinity in name only, but existing and
subsisting in truth, ' both a Father truly exist-
ing and subsisting, and a Son truly substantial
and subsisting, and a Holy Spirit subsisting
and really existing do we acknowledge,' and
that neither had they said there were three
Gods or three beginnings, nor would they at
all tolerate such as said or held so, but that
they acknowledged a Holy Trinity but One
Godhead, and one Beginning, and that the
Son is coessential with the Father, as the
fathers said ; while the Holy Spirit is not
a creature, nor external, but proper to and
inseparable from the Essence of the Father
and the Son.
6. The question of one Subsistence {Hypostasis)
or three, tiot to be pressed.
Having accepted then these men's interpre-
tation and defence of their language, we made
enquiry of those blamed by them for speaking
of One Subsistence, whether they use the ex-
pression in the sense of Sabellius, to the nega-
9 varoo'Tdcrets.
LETTER TO THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH.
485
tion of the Son and the Holy Spirit, or as
though the Son were non-substantial, or the
Holy Spirit impersonal '°. But they in their
turn assured us that they neither meant this
nor had ever held it, but ' we use the word
Subsistence thinking it the same thing to say
Subsistence or Essence ; ' ' But we hold that
there is One, because the Son is of the Essence
of the Father, and because of the identity of
nature. For we believe that there is one God-
head, and that it has one nature, and not that
there is one nature of the Father, from which
that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are dis-
tinct.' Well, thereupon they who had been
blamed for saying there were three Sub-
sistences agreed with the others, while those
who had spoken of One Essence, also con-
fessed the doctrine of the former as interpreted
by them. And by both sides Arius was
anathematised as an adversary of Christ, and
Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, as impious
men, and Valentinus and BasiUdes as aliens
from the truth, and Manichasus as an inventor
of mischief. And all, by God's grace, and
after the above explanations, agree together
that the faith confessed by the fathers at
Nicsea is better than the said phrases, and
that for the future they would prefer to be con-
tent to use its language.
7. The human Nature of Christ complete,
not Body only.
But since also certain seemed to be contend-
ing together concerning the fleshly Economy
of the Saviour, we enquired of both parties.
And what the one confessed, the others also
agreed to, that the Word did not, as it came
to the prophets, so dwell in a holy man at the
consummation of the ages, but that the Word
Himself was made flesh, and being in the
Form of God, took the form of a servant ", and
from Mary after the flesh became man for us,
and that thus in Him the human race is per-
fectly and wholly delivered from sin and quick-
ened from the dead, and given access to the
kingdom of the heavens. For they confessed
also that the Saviour had not a body without
a soul, nor without sense or intelligence ; for it
was not possible, when the Lord had become
man for us, that His body should be without
intelligence : nor was the salvation effected in
the Word Himself a salvation of body only,
but of soul also. And being Son of God in
truth. He became also Son of Man, and be-
ing God's Only-begotten Son, He became also
at the same time ' firstborn among many
10 avovcrtov, awiroa-TaTOv, the words are rendered ' unessential '
and ' not subsisting ' in another connection, su^r. p. 434, &c.
" Phil. ii. 7, &c.
brethren ".' Wherefore neither was there one
Son of God before Abraham, another after
Abraham ' : nor was there one that raised up
Lazarus, another that asked concerning him ;
but the same it was that said as man, ' Where
does Lazarus lie^;' and as God raised him up :
the same that as man and in the body spat,
but divinely as Son of God opened the eyes of
the man blind from his birth 3 ■ and while, as
Peter says ^, in the flesh He suffered, as God
opened the tomb and raised the dead. For
which reasons, thus understanding all that is
said in the Gospel, they assured us that they
held the same truth about the Word's Incar-
nation and becoming Man.
8 Questions of words must not be suffered to
divide those who think alike.
These things then being thus confessed, we
exhort you not hastily to condemn those who
so confess, and so explain the phrases they
use, nor to reject them, but rather to accept
them as they desire peace and defend them-
selves, while you check and rebuke, as of sus-
picious views, those who refuse so to confess
and to explain their language. But while you
refuse toleration to the latter, counsel the
others also who explain and hold aright, not to
enquire further into each other's opmions, nor
to fight about words to no useful purpose, nor
to go on contending with the above phrases,
but to agree in the mind of piety. For they
who are not thus minded, but only stir up strife
with such petty phrases, and seek something
beyond what was drawn up at Nicaea, do
nothing except 'give their neighbour turbid
confusion to drink s,' like men who grudge
peace and love dissensions. But do ye, as
good men and faithful servants and stewards of
the Lord, stop and check what gives otfence
and is strange, and value above all things
peace of that kind, faith being sound. Per-
haps God will have pity on us, and unite what
is divided, and, there being once more one
flock ^, we shall all have one leader, even our
Lord Jesus Christ.
9, The above terms unanimously agreed upon.
These things, albeit there was no need
to require anything beyond the synod of
Nicaea, nor to tolerate the language of con-
tention, yet tor the sake of peace, and to
prevent the rejection of men who wish to
believe aright, we enquired into. And what
they confessed, we put briefly into writing, we
namely who are left in Alexandria, in common
«a Rom. viii. 29. ' John viu. 58.
lb. xi. 34. 3 Mark viii. 22, &c. 4 i Pet. iv. i.
5 Hab. ii. is. * John "• ^^-
486
TOMUS AD ANTIOCHENOS.
with our fellow-ministers, Asterius and Euse-
bius. For most of us had gone away to our
dioceses. But do you on your part read this
in public where you are wont to assemble, and
be pleased to invite all to you thither. For it
is right that the letter should be there first
read, and that there those who desire and
strive for peace should be re-united. And
then, when they are re-united, in the spot
where all the laity think best, in the presence
of your courtesy, the public assemblies should
be held, and the Lord be glorified by all toge-
ther. The brethren who are with me greet
you. I pray that you may be well, and re-
member us to the Lord ; both I, Athanasius,
and likewise the other bishops assembled,
sign, and those sent by Lucifer, bishop of
the island of Sardinia, two deacons, Heren-
nius and Agapetus ; and from Paulinus, Maxi-
mus and Calemerus, deacons also. And there
were present certain monks of Apolinarius ^
the bishop, sent from him for the purpose.
ID. Signatures.
The names of the several bishops to whom
the letter is addressed are : Eusebius of the
city of Virgilli in Gaul s, Lucifer of the island
of Sardinia, Asterius of Petra, Arabia, Kyma-
tius of Paltus, Coele-Syria, Anatolius of Eubcea.
Senders : the Pope Athanasius, and those
present with him in Alexandria, viz.: Eusebius,
Asterius, and the others al)ove-mentioned,
Gaius of Paratonium 9 in Hither Libya, Aga-
thus of Phragonis and part of Elearchia in
Egypt, Ammonius of Pachnemunis ^° and the
rest of Elearchia, Agathodsemon of Schedia "
and Menelaitas, Dracontius of Lesser Her-
mupolis, Adelphius of Onuphis ^^ in Lychni,
Hermion of Tanes '3^ Marcus of Zygra ^^,
Hither Libya, Theodorus of Athribis ^^, An-
dreas of Arsenoe, Paphnutius of Sais, Marcus
of Philce, Zoilus of Andros 's^ Menas of An-
tiphra^^.
Eusebius also signs, the following in Latin,
of which the translation is :
I Eusebius, according to your exact con-
fession made on either side by agreement
concerning the Subsistences, also add my
1 Of Laodicea, the later heresiarch. 8 i.e. Vercellae, in
'Cisalpine ' Gaul, or Lombardy.
9 In Marmarica or ' Libya Siccior ' near the Ras el Harzeit.
10 Capital of the Sebennytic nome, near Hatidahur.
" A town and custom-house near Andropolis, between Alxa.
and the Canopic arm of the Nile.
" Chief town of a nome in the Delta. '3 ' Zoan."
U A very important town near the head of the Tanite arm.
See Amm. Marc. xxii. i6. 6, who calls it one of the four largest
cities in Egypt proper. ^5 i.e. Andropolis (above, note ii).
i6 West of Alxa. toward the Libyan dessert, and not far from
Zygra in Marmarica.
agreement; further concerning the Incarna-
tion of our Saviour, namely that the Son of
God has become Man, taking everything upon
Himself without sin, like the composition of
our old man, I ratify the text of the letter.
And whereas the Sardican paper is ruled out,
to avoid the appearance of issuing anything
beyond the creed of Nicaea, I also add my
consent, in order that the creed of Nicaea
may not seem by it to be excluded, and [I
agree] that it should not be published. I pray
for your health in the Lord.
I Asterius agree to what is above written^
and pray for your health in the Lord.
T I. The ' Tome ' signed at Antioch,
And after this Tome was sent off from'
Alexandria, thus signed by the aforesaid, [the
recipients] in their turn signed it :
I Paulinus hold thus, as I received from the
fathers, that the Father perfectly exists and
subsists, and that the Son perfectly subsists,
and that the Holy Spirit perfectly subsists.
Wherefore also I accept the above explanation
concerning the Three Subsistences, and the
one Subsistence, or rather Essence, and those
who hold thus. For it is pious to hold and
confess the Holy Trinity in one Godhead.
And concerning the Word of the Father be-
coming Man for us, I hold as it is written,
that, as John says, the Word was made Flesh,
not in the sense of those most impious persons
who say that He has undergone a change, but
that He has become Man for us, being born
of the holy Virgin Mary and of the Holy
Spirit. For the Saviour had a body neither
without soul, nor without sense, nor without
intelligence. For it were impossible, the Lord
being made Man for us, that His body should
be without intelligence. Wherefore I anathe-
matise those who set aside the Faith confessed
at Nicaea, and who do not say that the Son
is of the Father's Essence, and coessential
with the Father. Moreover I anathematise
those who say that the Holy Spirit is a Crea-
ture made through the Son. Once more I
anathematise the heresy of Sabellius and of
Photinus ^7j and every heresy, walking in the
Faith of Nicaea, and in all that is above
written. I Karterius^^ pray for your health.
'7 See Prolegg. ch. ii. § | (2) adjin. This is remarkable as
the first Eastern condemnation of Photinus by name from the
Nicene side. He had been condemned at Sirmium in 347, and
under pressure from the East apparently at Milan in 345 and 347,
as well as in the Councils of Antioch in 344, and Sirmium in 351
{supr. pp. <^63, 464). On the document of Paulinus, see Epiph.
Har. Ixxvii. 20, 21, also Dr. Bright's note.
^ Bishop of Antaradus on the Syrian coast (D. C. B. i. 410 (3 )) i
see de Fuga, 3, and Hist. Ar. 5. note 6a.
APPENDIX.
EXILE OF ATHANASIUS UNDER JULIAN, 362—363
The fragment whicli follows, containing an interesting report of a story told by Athanasius to Ammonius,
Bishop of Pachnemunis, is inserted here as furnishing undesignedly important details as to the movements of
Athanasius in 363. See Prolegg. ch. v. § 3 h, also ch. ii. § 9. It is excerpted by Montfaucon from an account of the
Abbat Theodore, written for Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria (385—412) by a certain Ammon (Aaa SS. Mali,
Tom. ui. Append., pp. 63— 71). The writer was at that time a bishop (see unknown) : he was born about 335, as
he was seventeen years old when he embraced the monastic life a year ' and more ' after the proclamation of Gallus
as Caesar (Mar. 15, 351). About the time of the expulsion of Athanasius by Syrianus he retired to Nitria. where
he remained many years, and finally returned to Alexandria, where he appears {iiifra) as one of the clergy ; the
date of his elevation to the Episcopate cannot be fixed, but it obviously cannot be as early as 356 7 (so^.C.B. i.
102 (2), and probably is much later even than 362, in which year he would still be hardly twenty-eight. (He
mentions the objections to the election of Athanasius, who was probably 30 in 328, on the ground of his youth.)
Accordingly (apart from the different form of his name) he cannot ' be identified with either of the Ammonii
referred to in Tom. ad Ant. i, note 3 ; Hist. Ar. 72, &c. The elder of the two Joes not concern us here : the
younger {siipr. pp. 483, 486), is the Ammonius to whom Athanasius told the story in the hearing of Ammon,
and was now dead. Of Hermon, bishop of Bubastis, mentioned as present along with Ammonius, Theophilus,
and Ammon when the story was told, nothing is known (except that the date D.C.B. iii. 4 (2) is over 25 years
too early). As he is not 'of blessed memory,' he was possibly still living during the Episcopate of Theophilus
and Ammon. (There is nothing to identify him with the bishop of Tanes in Tom. Ant. i, 10.)
The story itself is given at second-hand, from Ammon's recollection of a statement by Athanasius some
12 to 15 years (at least) before he wrote. The prophetic details about Jovian may therefore be put down
to natural accretion {Letter 56, note 2). But (apart from the fact that Julian's death must have been nimoured
long before the tardy official announcement of it, Tillem. Emp. iv. 449 sqq., Prolegg. ubi sitpr.) that
Athanasius told of the <pvfji.r] of Julian's death among the monks of the Thebaid need not be doubted.
The story is one of a very large class, many of which are fairly authenticated. To say nothing of the
<t>7)fiTI at the battle of Mycale ; we have in recent times the authority of Mr. R. Stuart Poole, of the British
Museum, for the fact that on the night of the death of the Duke of Cambridge (July 9, 1850), Mr. Poole's
brother 'suddenly took out his watch and said, "Note the time, the Duke of Cambridge is dead," and
that the time proved to be correct ; ' also the case of a Mr. Edmonds who saw at Leicester, early in the
morning of Nov. 4, 1837, an irruption of water into the works of the Thames tunnel, by which a workman was
drowned ; (other curious cases in 'Phantasms of the Living' vol. 2., pp. 367 sgq.). The letter or memoir from
which this ' Narratio ' is taken, was published by the Bollandists from a Medicean MS., and it bears every
internal mark of genuineness. In what way it is integrally connected with the Vita Antonii (Gwatkin, Studies,
p. loi), except by the fact that it happens to mention Antony, I fail to see. On the subject of Theodore of
Tabenne, the main subject of the memoir, see Amelineau's S. Pakhome {ut supra, p. 188), also infr. Letter 58,
note 3.
"As I think your holiness was present and heard, when his blessedness Pope Athanasius, in the presence
of other clergy of Alexandria and of my insignificance, formerly related in the Great Church something about
Theodorus^, to Ammonius of blessed memory, bishop of Elearchia^, and to Hermon, bishop of the city of
Bumastica'*; I write only what is necessary to put your reverence in mind of what he said. When the famous
bishops were wondering at the blessed Antony, Pope Athanasius — for Antony was often with him — said to them :
-I saw also at that season great men of God, who are lately dead, Theodorus chief of the Tabennesian monks,
and the father of the monks around s Antinoopolis, called Abbas Pammon. For when I was pursued by Julian, and
was expecting to be slain by him — for this news was shewn me by good friends — these two came to me on the same
day at Antinoopolis. And having planned to hide with Theodorus, I embarked on his vessel, which was completely
covered in, while Abbas Pammon accompanied us. And when the wind was unfavourable, I was very anxious
and prayed ; and the monks with Theodore got out and towed the boat. And as Abbas Pammon was encourag-
ing me in my anxiety, I said, ' Believe me when I say that my heart is never so trustful in time of peace as in
time of persecution. For I have good confidence that suffering for Christ, and strengthened by His mercy, even
though I am slain, I shall find mercy with Him.' And while I was still saying this, Theodorus fixed his eyes on
Abbas Pammon and smiled, while the other nearly laughed. So I said to them, ' Why have you laughed at my
words, do you convict me of cowardice ?' and Theodorus said to Abbas Pammon, ' Tell him why we smiled.' At
which the latter said, 'You ought to tell him.' So Theodoras said, ' in this very hour Julian has been slain in
Persia,' for so God had declared beforehand concerning him : ' the haughty man, the despiser and the boaster,
shall finish nothing*. But a Christian Emperor shall arise who shall be illustrious, but shall live only a short
time'. Wherefore you ought not to harass yourselves by departing into the Thebaid, but secretly to go to the Court,
for you will meet him by the way, and having been kindly received by him, will return to your Church. And he
soon shall be taken by God.' And so it happened. From which cause I believe, that many who are well
pleasing to God live unnoticed, especially among the monks. For those men were unnoticed also, such as the
blessed Amun and the holy Theodorus^ in the mountain of Nitria, and the servant of God, the happy old
man, Pammon."
I The Articles in D.C.B. i. 102 (zj and (3), combine variously
data belonging to three distinct persons, (i) The old bishop or-
dained by Alexander (see unknown, see Hist. Ar. 72 init.). Signs
the synodal letter of the Sardican Council ; is one of the infirm
prelates cruelly expelled by George, along with coffins to bury
them in case of the journey being fatal (see also Apol. Fug. 7).
(2) Another Ammonius, probably not a signatory of Sardica (cf.
Apol. Ar. 50, with Ep. Fest. for 347), but a contemporary of
Serapion, sent by Athanasius with Scrap, to Constantius in 353.
He had been a monk, but was then {Dracont. 7) bishop of Pach-
nemunis and part of Elearchia(7o;«. 10), in which capacity, along
witli other exiles of 356-7 (_Hist. Ar. 72 ; Afi. Fits- 7), he attends
the Council of 362. He is the ' Ammonius of blessed memory"
in the text. (3; Ammon, born 335, baptized 352, monk at Tabenne
and Nitria 352 — 367(?), then at Ale.\andria, and finally (about ^90)
bishop of an unknown see in Egypt : wrote a short account of
S. Theodore for Pope Theophilus.
2 Cf. Vit. Ant. 60, and see below, letters 57, 38, and Acta
SS. Mail, vol. iii. pp. 334 — 357, and Appx. ; also D.C.B. iv. 954
(53). 3 Tom. Ant. 4. ■* i.e. Bubastis. 5 Opposite
Hermupolis Magna in Upper Egypt * Habak. ii. 5.
7 Cf Letter 56, note a. » On this Theodore, see D.C.B. s.v.
no. (67).
AD AFROS EPISTOLA SYNODICA.
(Written about 369.)
The synodical letter which follows was written after the accession of Damasus to the
Roman see (366). Whether it was written before any Western synod had formally con-
demned Auxentius of Milan (see Letter 59. 1) may be doubted : the complaint (§ 10) is rather
that he still retains possession of his see, which in fact he did until 374, the year after
the death of Athanasius. At any rate, Damasus had had time to hold a large synod, the
letter of which had reached Athanasius. The history of the synods held by Damasus seems
hopelessly obscure, and the date of our encyclical is correspondingly doubtful. Damasus
certainly held at one time a synod of some 90 bishops from Italy and the Gauls, the letter
of which was sent to lUyricum and to the East (Thdt. H. E. ii. 22 ; Soz. vi. 23 ; Hard. Cone.
i. 771 : the Latin of the copy sent to lUyricum is dated 'Siricio et Ardabure vv. cl. coss.,'
an additional element of confusion). The name of Sabinus at the end of the Latin copy
sent to the East seems to fix the date of this synod (D.C.B. i. 294) to 372. Thus the synod
referred to § i below must have been an earlier one, the acts of which are lost. It cannot
have been held before the end of 367 or beginning of 368 (Montf. Vit. Aih.), as the earlier
period of the episcopate of Damasus was fully occupied by different matters. Accordingly
our encyclical falls between 368 and 372, probably as soon as Damasus had been able
to assemble so large a synod, and Athanasius to write in reply (§ 10). It may be added
that the letter of the Damasine synod of 372 refers in ambiguous terms to the condemnation
of Auxentius as having already taken place, (' damnatum esse liquet : ' was this because they
felt unable to dislodge him ? see Tillem. viii. 400).
The occasion of the letter is two-fold : principally to counteract the efforts that were
being made in the West, and especially in Africa (still later in the time of S. Augustine,
see Collat. cum Maxhnin. 4 ; and for earlier Arian troubles in Africa, Nicene Lib. vol. i.
p. 287), to represent the council of Ariminum as a final settlement of the Faith, and so
to set aside the authority of the Nicene definition. The second object is involved in the
first. The head and centre of the dying eff"orts of Arianism in the Roman West was
apparently Auxentius, ' one of the last survivors of the victory of Ariminum.' That he
should be still undisturbed in his see, while working far and wide to the damage of the
Catholic cause, was to Athanasius a distressing surprise, and he was urging the Western
bishops to put an end to such an anomaly.
In the encyclical before us he begins (i — 3) by contrasting the synod of Nicsea with that of Ariminum,
and pointing out the real history of the latter, going over again to some extent the ground of the earlier
sections of the de Synodis. He touches (3. end) on the disastrous termination of the Council. He then
proceeds to vindicate the Nicene creed (4 — 8) as essentially Scriptural, i.e. as the only possible bar to the
unscriptural formulae of the Arians. This he illustrates (5, 6) by an account, substantially identical with that
in the de Decretis, of the evasions of every other test by the Arian bishops at Nicsea. He repeatedly urges
that the formula was no invention of the Nicene Fathers (6, 9), appealing to the admission of Eusebius
to this effect. He attacks the Homoean position, shewing that its characteristic watchword merely dissembles
the alternative between Anomceanism and the true co-essentiality of the Son (7). The most novel argument
in the Letter is that of § 4, where he refutes the repudiation of ohaia and yiroc-rao-js in the creed of Nik^
by an argument from Scripture, starting from Ex. iii. 14 (as de Deer. 22 and de Syn. 29), and turning upon
the equivalence of the two terms in question. This wouid appeal to Westerns, and expresses the usual view
of Ath. himself ( Tom. ad Ant. Introd. ) but would not have much force with those who were accustomed
to the Eastern terminology.
The insistence (in § 11) that the Nicene formula involves the Godhead of the Spirit should be noted.
It seems to imply that, as a rule, such an explicit assurance as is insisted upon in Tom ad Ant, 3, would
be superfluous.
The completeness of the work of Athanasius, now very near his end, in winning over all Egypt to
unanimity in faith and in personal attachment to himself, is quaintly reflected in the naive assurance (§ lO)
that the bishops of Egypt and the Libyas ' are all of one mind, and we always sign for one another if any
chance not to be present.'
The translation has been carefully compared with that of Dr. Bright {supr. p. 482)1
TO THE BISHOPS OF AFRICA.
LETTER OF NINETY BISHOPS OF EGYPT AND LIBYA.
INCLUDING ATHANASIUS.
I . Pre-eminence of the Council of Niccza. Efforts
to exalt that of Ariminum at its expense.
The letters are sufficient which were written
by our beloved fellow-minister Damasus, bishop
of the Great Rome, and the large number of
bishops who assembled along with him ; and
equally so are those of the other synods which
were held, both in Gaul and in Italy, con-
cerning the sound Faith which Christ gave us,
the Apostles preached, and the Fathers, who
met at Nicsea from all this world of ours, have
handed down. For so great a stir was made
at that time about the Arian heresy, in order
that they who had fallen into it might be
reclaimed, while its inventors might be made
manifest. To that council, accordingly, the
whole world has long ago agreed, and now,
many synods having been held, all men have
been put in mind, both in Dalmatia and Dar-
dania, Macedonia, Epirus and Greece, Crete,
and the other islands, Sicily, Cyprus, Pam-
phylia, Lycia, and Isauria, all Egypt and the
Libyas, and most of the Arabians have come
to know it, and marvelled at those who signed
it, inasmuch as even if there were left among
them any bitterness springing up from the root
of the Arians ; we mean Auxentius, Ursacius,
Valens and their fellows, by these letters they
have been cut off and isolated. The con-
fession arrived at at Nicaea was, we say once
more, sufficient and enough by itself, for the
subversion of all irreligious heresy, and for the
security and furtherance of the doctrine of the
Church. But since we have heard that certam
wishing to oppose it are attempting. to cite a
synod supposed to have been held at Ari-
minum, and are eagerly striving that it should
prevail rather than the other, we think it right
to write and put you in mind, not to endure
anything of the sort : for this is nothing else
but a second growth of the Arian heresy.
For what else do they wish for who reject the
synod held against it, namely the Nicene, if
not that the cause of Arius should prevail ?
What then do such men deserve, but to be
called Arians, and to share the punishment of
the Arians ? For they were not afraid of God,
who says, ' Remove not the eternal boundaries
which thy fathers placed S' and ' He that
speaketh against father or mother, let him die
the death ^ : ' they were not in awe of their
fathers, who enjoined that they who hold the
opposite of their confession should be ana-
thema.
2. The Synod of Niccea contrasted with the
local Synods held since.
For this was why an ecumenical synod has
been held at Nicasa, 318 bishops assembling
to discuss the faith on account of the Arian
heresy, namely, in order that local synods
should no more be held on the subject of the
Faith, but that, even if held, they should not
hold good. For what does that Council lack,
that any one should seek to innovate ? It is
full of piety, beloved ; and has filled the whole
world with it. Indians have acknowledged it,
and all Christians of other barbarous nations.
Vain then is the labour of those who have
often made attempts against it. For already
the men we refer to have held ten or more
synods, changing their ground at each, and
while taking away some things from earlier
decisions, in later ones make changes and
additions. And so far they have gained nothing
by writing, erasing, and using force, not know-
ing that 'every plant that the Heavenly Father
hath not planted shall be plucked up 3.' But
the word of the Lord which came through the
ecumenical Synod at Nicaea, abides for ever 3^.
For if one compare number with number,
these who met at Niceea are more than those
at local synods, inasmuch as the whole is
greater than the part. But if a man wishes to
discern the reason of the Synod at Nicaea, and
that of the large number subsequently held by
' Prov. xxii. 28.
2 Ex. xxi. 17,
3» I Pet. i. 25,
3 Matt. XV. 13.
490
AD AFROS.
these men, he will find that while there was a
reasonable cause for the former, the others
were got together by force, by reason of hatred
and contention. For the former council was
summoned because of the Arian heresy, and
because of Easter, in that they of Syria, Cilicia
and Mesopotamia differed from us, and kept
the feast at the same season as the Jews. But
thanks to the Lord, harmony has resulted not
only as to the Faith, but also as to the Sacred
Feast. And that was the reason of the synod
at Nicaea. But the subsequent ones were
without number, all however planned in op-
position to the ecumenical.
3. The true nature of the proceedings at
Ariminum.
This being pointed out, who will accept
those who cite the synod of Ariminum, or any
other, against the Nicene ? or who could help
hating men who set at nought their fathers'
decisions, and put above them the newer ones,
drawn up at Ariminum with contention and vio-
lence ? or who would wish to agree with these
men, who do not accept even their own ? For
in their own ten or more svnods, as I said
above, they wrote now one thing, now another,
and so came out clearly as themselves the
accusers of each one. Their case is not unlike
that of the Jewish traitors in old times. For
just as they left the one well of the living
water, and hewed for themselves broken cis-
terns, which cannot hold water, as the prophet
Jeremiah has it 4, so these men, fighting against
the one ecumenical synod, 'hewed for them-
selves ' many synods, and all appeared empty,
like ' a sheaf without strength s.' Let us
not then tolerate those who cite the Ari-
minian or any other synod against that of
Nicaea. For even they who cite that of Ari-
minum apjDear not to know what was done
there, for else they would have said nothing
about it. For ye know, beloved, from those
who went from you to Ariminum, how Ursa-
cius and Valens, Eudoxiuss* and Auxentius si^
(and there Demophilus s<= also was with them),
were deposed, after wishing to write something
to supersede the Nicene decisions. For on
being requested to anathematise the Arian
heresy, they refused, and preferred to be its
ringleaders. So the bishops, like genuine ser-
vants of the Lord and orthodox believers (and
there were nearly 200 ^), wrote that they were
4 ii. 13. 5 Hos. viii. 7, LXX.
5» Eudoxius was at Seleucia, not at Ariminum.
S' See note on § 10 infr.
5' Bishop of Berosa in Macedonia Tertia, and from 370 — 380
successor of Eudoxius as Arian bishop of CP.
t There were some 400 in all, so that the orthodox majority
must have been far more than 2co {see de Syn. 8, 33). But Gwat-
kin (Stud. 170, note 3), inclines to accept the statement in the
text.
satisfied with the Nicene alone, and desired
and held nothing more or less than that.
This they also reported to Constantius, who
had ordered the assembling of the synod.
But the men who had been deposed at Ari-
minum went oft" to Constantius, and caused
those who had reported against them to be
insulted, and threatened with not being al-
lowed to return to their dioceses, and to be
treated with violence in Thrace that very
winter, to compel them to tolerate their in-
novations.
4. The Nicene formula in accordance with
Scripture.
If then any cite the synod of Ariminum,
firstly let them point out the deposition of the
above persons, and what the bishops wrote,
namely that none should seek anything beyond
what had been agreed upon by the fathers at
Nic«a, nor cite any synod save that one. But
this they suppress, but make much of what was
done by violence in Thrace^"; thus shewing
that they are dissemblers of the Arian heresy,
and aliens from the sound Faith. And again,
if a man were to examine and compare the
great synod itself, and those held by these
people, he would discover the piety of the one
and the folly of the others. They who as-
sembled at Nicsea did so not after being de-
posed : and secondly, they confessed that the
Son was of the Essence of the Father. But
the others, after being deposed again and
again, and once more at Ariminum itself,
ventured to write that it ought not to be said
that the Son had Essence or Subsistence.
This enables us to see, brethren, that they
of Nicaea breathe the spirit of Scripture, in that
God says in Exodus^", 'I am that I am,' and
through Jeremiah, 'Who is in His substance 7
and hath seen His word;' and just below, 'if
they had stood in My subsistence^ and heard
My words : ' now subsistence is essence, and
means nothing else but very being, which
Jeremiah calls existence, in the words, ' and
they heard not the voice of existence^.' For
subsistence, and essence, is existence : for it
is, or in other words exists. This Paul also
perceiving wrote to the Hebrews, ' who being
the brightness of his glory, and the express
Image of his subsistence '°.' But the others,
who think they know the Scriptures and call
themselves wise, and do not choose to speak
of subsistence in God (for thus they wrote at
Ariminum and at other synods of theirs), were
surely with justice deposed, saying as they did.
6» i.e. at Nik^, 359. ^ Ex. iii. 14.
xxiii. 18, LXX.
LXX.
7 vToimy/iioTt, Jer.
8 vn-oarairei, v. 22. 9 v;rop jis, Jer. ix. 10,
10 Heb. i. 3.
TO THE BISHOPS OF AFRICA.
491
like the fool did in his heart', 'God is not.'
And again the fathers taught at Nicaea that the
Son and Word is not a creature, nor made,
having read ' all things were made through
Him^,' and 'in Him were all things created,
and consists;' while these men, Arians rather
than Christians, in their other synods have
ventured to call Him a creature, and one of
the things that are made, things of which He
Himself is the Artificer and Maker. For if
' through Him all things were made ' and He
too is a creature, He would be the creator
of Himself. And how can what is being
created create? or He that is creating be
created ?
5. How the test ' CoesseiitiaV cat?ie to
be adopted at Niccea.
But not even thus are they ashamed, al-
though they say such things as cause them to
be hated by all; citing the Synod of Ariminum,
only to shew that there also they were de
posed. And as to the actual definition of
Nicsea, that the Son is coessential with the
Father, on account of which they ostensibly
oppose the synod, and buzz around every-
where like gnats about the phrase, either they
stumble at it from ignorance, like those who
stumble at the stone of stumbling that was
laid in Sion 4 ; or else they know, but for that
very reason are constantly opposing and mur-
muring, because it is an accurate declaration
and full in the face of their heresy. For it is
not the phrases that vex them, but the con-
demnation of themselves which the definition
contains. And of this, once again, they are
themselves the cause, even if they wish to con-
ceal the fact of which they are perfectly aware,
— But we must now mention it, in order that
hence also the accuracy of the great synod
may be shewn. Fors the assembled bishops
wished to put away the impious phrases de-
vised by the Arians, namely ' made of nothing,'
and that the Son was ' a thing made,' and
a ' creature,' and that ' there was a time when
He was not,' and that 'He is of mutable
nature.' And they wished to set down in
writing the acknowledged language of Scrip-
ture, namely that the Word is of God by
nature Only-begotten, Power, Wisdom of the
Father, Very God, as John says, and as Paul
wrote, brightness of the Father's glory and
express image of His person". But Eusebius
and his fellows, drawn on by their own error,
kept conferring together as follows : ' Let us
assent. For we also are of God : for " there is
one God of whom are all things^" and "old
I Ps. xiv. I. s John i. 3. 3 Col. 1. 16. 4 Rom. ix. 33.
5 This passage repeats in substance the account in de Deer. 19.
1 vTToo-Taa-t?. - I Coi . viii. 6.
things are passed away, behold all things are
made new, but all things are of God 3.'"
And they considered what is written in the
Shepherd 4, ' Before all things believe that God
is one, who created and set all things in order,
and niade them to exist out of nothing.' But
the Bishops, beholding their craftiness, and the
cunning of their impiety, expressed more
plainly the sense of the words ' of God,' by
writing that the Son is of the Essence of God,
so that whereas the Creatures, since they do
not exist of themselves without a cause, but
have a beginning of their existence, are said to
be ' of God,' the Son alone might be deemed
proper to the Essence of the Father. For this
is pecuHar to one who is Only-begotten and true
Word in relation to a Father, and this was the
reason why the words ' of the essence ' were
adopted. Again 4\ upon the bishops asking
the dissembling minority if they agreed that
the Son was not a Creature, but the Power and
only Wisdom of the Father, and the Eternal
Image, in all respects exact, of the Father, and
true God, Eusebius and his fellows were ob-
served exchanging nods with one another, as
much as to say ' this applies to us men also,
for we too are called •' the image and glory
of God 5," and of us it is said, " For we which
live are alway^," and there are many Powers,
and "all the power? of the Lord went out of
the land of Egypt," while the caterpillar and
the locust are called His "great power 8."
And "the Lord of powers 9 is with us, the
God of Jacob is our help." For we hold
that we are proper' to God, and not merely
so, but insomuch that He has even called us
brethren. Nor does it vex us, even if they
call the Son Very God. For when made
He exists in verity.'
6. The Nicene test not unscriptural i?i sense,
nor a novelty.
Such was the corrupt mind of the Arians.
But here too the Bishops, beholding their
craftiness, collected from the Scriptures the
figures of brightness, of the river and the well,
and of the relation of the express Image to the
Subsistence, and the texts, ' in thy light shall
we see light =^,' and ' I and the Father are
one 3.' And lastly they wrote more plainly,
and concisely, that the Son was coessential
with the Father ; for all the above passages sig-
nify this. x\nd their murmuring, that the
phrases are unscriptural, is exposed as vain
by themselves, for they have uttered their im-
pieties in unscriptural terms : (for such are ' of
3 2 Cor. V. 17, x8. 4 Herm. Mand. i. 4« Of. de Deer.
g 20, ubisupr. 5 i Cor. xi. 7. 6 Ps. c^y. 18 it/. 26, LXX.) ;
cf. 2 Cor. iv. II. 7 h\iva.y.i,<s, Ex. xii. 41. 8 Joel ii. 25.
9 hvva.y.iu>v, Ps. .xlvi. 7. ' tSi'ous. " Ps. xxxvi. 9.
3 John X. 30.
492
AD AFROS.
nothing' and ' there was a tuiae when He was
not'), while yet they find fault because they
were condemned by unscriptural terms pious
in meaning. While they, Hke men sprung from
a dunghill, verily 'spoke of the earthy' the
Bishops, not having invented their phrases for
themselves, but having testimony from their
Fathers, wrote as they did. For ancient
bishops, of the Great Rome and of our city,
some 130 years ago, wrote s and censured
those who said that the Son was a creature and
not coessential with the Father. And Euse-
bius knew this, who was bishop of Csesarea, and
at first an accomplice ^ of the Arian heresy ;
but afterwards, having signed at the Council of
Nicsea, wrote to his own people affirming as
follows : * we know that certain eloquent and
distinguished bishops and writers even of
ancient date used the word " coessential "
with reference to the Godhead of the Father
and the Son.'
7. The position that the Son is a Creature
inconsistent and untenable.
Why then do they go on citing the Synod of
Ariminum, at which they were deposed? Why
do they reject that of Nicsea, at which their
Fathers signed the confession that the Son is
of the Father's Essence and coessential with
Him ? Why do they run about ? For now they.
are at war not only with the bishops who met
at Nicsea, but with their own great bishops and
their own friends. Whose heirs or successors
then are they ? How can they call men fathers,
whose confession, well and apostolically drawn
up, they will not accept ? For if they think
they can object to it, let them speak, or rather
answer, that they may be convicted of falling
foul of themselves, whether they believe the Son
when He says, ' 1 and my Father are one,' and
*he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father ^'■^.'
' Yes,' they must answer, ' since it is written we
believe it.' But if they are asked how they are
one, and how he that hath seen the Son
hath seen the Father, of course, we suppose
they will say, ' by reason of resemblance,' unless
they have quite come to agree with those who
hold the brother-opinion to theirs, and are
called 7 Anomoeans. But if once more they
are asked, ' how is He like ? ' they brasen it
out and say, ' by perfect virtue and harmony, by
having the same will with the Father, by not
willing what the Father wills not' But let them
4 John iii. 31. 5 See de Syn. \ 43, and de Sent. Dionys.
18, 19, also supr. p. 76.
6 But see Socrates, ii. 21, and D.C.B. ii. p.347.
6» John X. 30, and xiv. 9.
7 Cf. de Syn. \ 31 (a chapter added after the death of Constan-
tius). The Anomoean sect, headed by Eunomius, and deriving its
intellectual impetus from Aetius, belongs to the second generation
of the Arian movement (their watchword is characterised as recent
in the creed of Nik6, 359 a.d.), and was comparatively unfamiliar
to Athanasius. Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. \ 8.
understand that one assimilated to God by virtue
and will is liable also to the purpose of chang-
ing; but the Word is not thus, unless He is
' like ' in part, and as we are, because He is not
like [God] in essence also. But these charac-
teristics belong to us, who are originate, and of
a created nature. For we too, albeit we can-
not become like God in essence, yet by pro-
gress in virtue imitate God, the Lord granting
us this grace, in the words, ' Be ye merciful as
your Father is merciful:' 'be ye perfect as your
heavenly Father is perfect ^.' But that originate
things are changeable, no one can deny, see-
ing that angels transgressed, Adam disobeyed,
and all stand in need of the grace of the Word.
But a mutable thing cannot be like God who is
truly unchangeable, any more than what is
created can be like its creator. This is why,
with regard to us, the holy man said, ' Lord,
who shall be likened unto thee 9,' and ' who
among the gods is like unto thee. Lord ^ y
meaning by gods those who, while created, had
yet become partakers of the Word, as He Him-
self said, ' If he called them gods to whom the
word of God came 2.' But things which par-
take cannot be identical with or similar to tliat
whereof they partake. For example. He said
of Himself, ' I and the Father are one 3,' im-
plying that things originate are not so. For we
would ask those who allege the Ariminian
Synod, whether a created essence can say,
' what things I see my Father make, those I
make also '^.' For things originate are made and
do not make ; or else they made even them-
selves. Why, if, as they say, the Son is a Crea-
ture and the Father is His Maker, surely the
Son would be His own maker, as He is able to
make what the Father makes, as He said. But
such a supposition is absurd and utterly un-
tenable, for none can make himself.
8. The Son's relation to the Father essential^
not merely ethical.
Once more, let them say whether things ori-
ginate could say 5, 'all things whatsoever the
Father hath are Mine.' Now, He has the pre-
rogative of creating and making, of Eternity, of
omnipotence, of immutability. But things ori-
ginate cannot have the power of making, for
they are creatures; nor eternity, for their exist-
ence has a beginning ; nor of omnipotence and
immutability, for they are under sway, and of
changeable nature, as the Scriptures say. Well
then, if these prerogatives belong to the Son,
they clearly do so, not on account of His
virtue, as said above, but essentially, even as
8 Luke vi. 36 ; iVIatt. v. 48. 9 Ps. Ixxxiii. i, LXX.
I Ps. Ixxxvi. 8. ' John x. 35. 3 lb. x. 30.
4 lb. V. 19 ; the word Troieu is taken in the sense of making.
5 John xvi. 15.
TO THE BISHOPS OF AFRICA.
493
the synod said, *He is of no other essence' but
of the Father's, to whom these prerogatives
are proper. But what can that be which is
proper to the Father's essence, and an off-
spring from it, or what name can we give
it, save ' coessential ? ' For that which a man
sees in the Father, that sees he also in the
Son ; and that not by participation, but essen-
tially. And this is [the meaning of] ' I and the
Father are one,' and ' he that hath seen Me
hath seen the Father.' Here especially once
more it is easy to shew their folly. If it is from
virtue, the antecedent of willing and not will-
ing, and of moral progress, that you hold the
Son to be like the Father ; while these things
fall under the category of quality ; clearly you
call God compound of quality and essence.
But who will tolerate you when you say this ?
For God, who compounded all things to give
them being, is not compound, nor of similar
nature to the things made by Him through
the Word. Far be the thought. For He is
simple essence, in which quality is not, nor, as
James says, 'any variableness or shadow of turn-
ing ^.' Accordingly, if it is shewn that it is not
from virtue (for in God there is no quality,
neither is there in the Son), then He must be
proper to God's essence. And this you will
certainly admit if mental apprehension is not
utterly destroyed in you. But what is that which
is proper to and identical with the essence of
God, and an Offspring from it by nature, if
not by this very fact coessential with Him
that begat it ? For this is the distinctive rela-
tion of a Son to a Father, and he who denies
this, does not hold that the Word is Son in
nature and in truth.
9. T/ie honest repudiaiion of Arianism
involves the acceptance of the Nicene test.
This then the Fathers perceived when they
wrote that the Son was coessential with the
Father, and anathematised those who say
that the Son is of a different Subsistence ^ :
not inventing phrases for themselves, but
learning in their turn, as we said, from the
Fathers who had been before them. But after
the above proof, their Ariminian Synod is
superfluous, as well as any 7" other synod cited
by them as touching the Faith. For that of
Nicaea is sufficient, agreeing as it does with the
ancient bishops also, in which too their fathers
signed, whom they ought to respect, on pain
of being thought anything but Christians.
But if even after such proofs, and after the
testimony of the ancient bishops, and the sig-
nature of their own Fathers, they pretend as if
in ignorance to be alarmed at the phrase
' James i. 17 7 vTroarao-is. ?' Omit i; with most MS&
' coessential,' then let them say and hold, in
simpler terms and truly, that the Son is Son
by nature, and anathematise as the synod en-
joined those who say that the Son of God is
a Creature or a thing made, or of nothing, or
that there was once a time when He was not,
and that He is mutable and liable to change,
and of another Subsistence. And so let *"hem
escape the Arian heresy. And we are con-
fident that in sincerely anathematising these
views, they ipso facto confess that the Son is
of the Father's Essence, and coessential with
Him. For this is why the Fathers, having
said that the Son was coessential, straight-
way added, 'but those who say that He is
a creature, or made, or of nothing, or that there
was once a time when He was not,' the Ca-
tholic Church anathematises : namely in order
that by this means they might make it
known that these things are meant by the
word ' coessential.' And the meaning ' Co-
essential ' is known from the Son not being
a Creature or^ thing made : and because he
that says ' coessential * does not hold that
the Word is a Creature : and he that anathe-
matises the above views, at the same time
holds that the Son is coessential with the
Father ; and he that calls Him ' coessential,'
calls the Son of God genuinely and truly so ;
and he that calls Him genuinely Son under-
stands the texts, ' I and the Father are one,'
and 'he that hath seen Me hath seen the
Father^.'
10, Purpose of this Letter ; warning
against Auxentius of Milan.
Now it would be proper to write this at
greater length. But since we write to you
who know, we have dictated it concisely, pray-
ing that among all the bond of peace might be
preserved, and that all in the CathoHc Church
should say and hold the same thing. And we
are not meaning to teach, but to put you in
mind. Nor is it only ourselves that write, but
all the bishops of Egypt and the Libyas, some
ninety in number. For we all are of one
mind in this, and we always sign for one
another if any chance not to be present.
Such being our state of mind, since we hap-
pened to be assembled, we wrote, both to our
beloved Damasus, bishop of the Great Rome,
giving an account of Auxentiuss who has in-
8 John X. 30, and xiv. 9.
9 Auxentius (not in D. C. B.) was a native ol Cappadocia
( Hist. Ar. 75), and had been ordained presbyter at Alexandria by
Gregory (next note). Upon the expulsion of the somewhat weak-
kneed Dionysius after the council at Milan (355) he was appointed
to that see by Constantius, although according to Athanasius_ («4j
supr.) he knew no Latin, nor any thing else except irreligion
('a busybody rather than a Christian'). He took a leading part
along with Valens and others at the Council of Ariminum {de Syn.
8, 10) and was included in the deposition of Arian leaders by that
synod. Under the orthodox Valentinian he maintained his see in
494
AD AFROS.
truded upon the church at Milan ; namely
that he not only shares the Arian heresy,
but is also accused of many offences, which
he committed with Gregory '°, the sharer
of his impiety; and while expressing our
surprise that so far he has not been deposed
and expelled from the Church, we thanked
[Damasus] for his piety and that of those
who assembled at the Great Rome, in
that by expelling Ursacius and Valens, and
those who hold with them, they preserved
the harmony of the Catholic Church. Which
we pray may be preserved also among you,
and therefore entreat you not to tolerate, as
we said above, those who put forward a host
of synods held concerning the Faith, at Ari-
minum, at Sirmium, in Isauria, in Thrace,
those in Constantinople, and the many ir-
regular ones in Antioch. But let the Faith
confessed by the Fathers at Nicsea alone hold
good among you, at which all the fathers, in-
cluding those of the men who now are fighting
spite of the efforts of Philaster, Evagrius, and Eusebius of Ver-
cellae, and in spite of the condemnations passed upon him by
various Western synods (362 — 371, see ad Epic t. i). In 364, Hilary
travelled to Milan on purpose to expose him before Valentinian.
In a discussion ordered by the latter, Hilary extorted from Auxen-
tius a confession which satisfied the Emperor, but not Hilary him-
self, vi-hose persistent denunciation of its insincerity caused his
dismissal from the town. Auxentius seems after this to have in-
trigued to obtain lUyrian signatures to the creed of (Nike or)
Ariminum (Hard. Cone. i. pp. 771, 773). Upon his death (374)
Ambrose was elected bishop of Milan, but was confronted by the
Arian party with a rival bishop in the person of a second Auxentius,
said to have been a pupil of Ulfilas.
'° The intrusive bishop of Alexandria. 339 — 346. He had or-
dained his fellow-countryman Auxentius (Hilar, in Aux. 8)l
against it, were present, as we said above, and
signed : in order that of us too the Apostle
may say, * Now I praise you that ye remember
me in all things, and as I handed the traditions
to you, so ye hold them fast ".'
II. Godhead of the Spirit also involved
in the Nicene Creed.
For this Synod of Nicasa is in truth a pro-
scription of every heresy. It also upsets those
who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and call Him
a Creature. For the Fathers, after speaking of
the faith in the Son, straightway added, ' And
we believe in the Holy Ghost,' in order that
by confessing perfectly and fully the faith in
the Holy Trinity they might make known the
exact form of the Faith of Christ, and the
teaching of the Catholic Church. For it is
made clear both among you and among all,
and no Christian can have a doubtful mind
on the point, that our faith is not in the
Creature, but in one God, Father Almighty,
maker of.all things visible and invisible : and
in one Lord Jesus Christ His Only-begotten
Son, and in one Holy Ghost ; one God, known
in the holy and perfect Trinity, baptized into
which, and in it united to the Deity, we believe
that we have also inherited the kingdom of
the heavens, in Christ Jesus our Lord, through
whom to the Father be the glory and the power
for ever and ever. Amen.
«' 1 Cor. xi. 3.
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS,
WITH TWO ANCIENT CHRONICLES OF HIS LIFE.
The Letters cannot be arranged in strict sequence of time without breaking into the
homogeneity of the corpus of Easter Letters. Accordingly we divide them into two parts :
(i) all that remain of the Easter or Festal Epistles : (2) Personal Letters. From the latter
class we exclude synodical or encyclical documents, or treatises merely inscribed to a friend,
such as those printed above pp. 91, 149, 173, 222, &c., &c., the ad Serapionefn, ad Mar-
tellinum^ &c. There remain a number of highly interesting letters, the survivals of what must
have been a large correspondence, all of which, excepting six (Nos. 52, 54, 56, 59, 60, 61), now
appear in EngHsh for the first time. They are arranged as nearly as possible in strict chrono-
logical order, though this is in some cases open to doubt (e.g. 60, 64, &c.). They mostly
belong to the later half of the episcopate of Athanasius, and are therefore placed after the
Festal Collection, which however itself extends to the end of the Bishop's life. The im-
memorial numbering of the latter collection is of course retained, although many of the
forty-five are no longer to be found.
Prefixed to the Letters are two almost contemporary chronicles, the one preserved in
the same MS. as Letters 46, 47, the other prefixed to the Syriac MS., which is our sole
channel for the bulk of the Easter Letters. A memorandum appended to Letter 64 specifies
certain fragments not included in this volume. The striking fragment Filiis suis has been
conjecturally placed among the remains oi Letter 29.
For the arrangement of the Letters, the reader is referred to the general Table of Contents
to this volume. We now give
A. The Historia Acephala or Maffeian fragment, with short introduction.
B. The Chronicon Praevium or Festal Index, with introduction to it and to
the Festal Letters.
The Historia Acephala. This most important document was brought to light in 1738 by the Marchese
F. Scipio MafFei (+ I75S), from a Latin MS. (uncial parchment) in the Chapter Library at Verona. It was
reprinted from Maffei's Osservazioni Letterarie in the Padua edition of Athanasius; also in 1769 by Gallandi
{Bibl. Pair. v. 222), from which edition (the reprint in Migne, xxvi. 1443 sqq. being full of serious misprints)
the following version has been made. The Latin text (including letters 46, 47, and a Letter of the Council
of Sardica) is very imperfect, but the annalist is so careful in his reckonings, and so often repeats himself,
that the careful reader can nearly always use the document to make good its own gaps or wrong readings.
Beyond this (except the insertion of the consuls for 372, § 17 ad Jin.) the present editor has not ventured ' to go.
The importance and value of the fragment must now be shewn.
The annalist evidently writes under the episcopate of Theophilus, to which he hurriedly brings down his
chronology after the death of Athanasius (§ 19). At the fortieth anniversary of the episcopate of Atha-
nasius, June 8, 368, he makes a pause (§ 17) in order to reckon up his dates. This passage is the key
of the whole of his chronological data. He accounts for the period of forty years (thus placing the accession
of Ath. at June 8, 328, in agreement with the Index), shewing how it is exactly made up by the periods
of 'exile' and of 'quiet' previously mentioned. To 'quiet' he assigns 'xxii years v months and x days,'
to 'exile' xvii years vi months xx days; total xl years. He then shews how the latter is made up by the
several exiles he has chronicled. As the text stands we have the following sum :
Table A. Exiles (i)
[(2)] . .
(3) • •
(4) • .
(5) • .
• exact result '
xc months iii days
Ixxii „ xiv „
• • X\ ff XXll yy
iv ,,
xvii years vi months xx days.
Now the exact result of the figures as they stand is 182 months, 9 days, i.e. 15 years 2 months and 9 days,
or 2 years 4 months and 1 1 days too little. Moreover of the well-known ' five exiles,' only four are accounted for.
An exile has thus dropped out, and an item of 2 years 4 months II days. Now this corresponds exactly with
the interval from Epiphi 17 (July 11), 335 (departure for Tyre, Fest. Ind. vui), to Athyr 27 (Nov. 23), 337
carefully and gratefully used, but his text is defective, especially
from the accidental omission of one of the key»jlauses of the
whole (§ 17).
I The corrections were made before he could obtain the essay
»nd text of Sievers {Zeitsck. Hist. Theol. i868), where he now
finds them nearly all anticipated. Sievers' discussion has been
496
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
(return to Alexandria F. 1. x). The annalist then (followed apparently by Theodt. H. E. ii. i) reckoned the
first exile at the above figure. But what of the first figure in our table, xc months iii days? It again exactly
coincides with the interval from Pharm. 21 (Apr. i6, Easter Monday), 339 to Paophi 24 (Oct. 21), 346, on
which day (§ i) Athan. returned from his second exile. This double coincidence cannot be an accident. It
demonstrates beyond all dispute that the missing item of 'ann. ii, mens, iv, d. xii' has dropped out after ' Treveris
in Galliis,^ and that 'mens, xc, dies iii ' relates to the second exile, so that, in § i also, the annalist wrote not
• annos vi ' but 'annos vii menses vi dies iii,' which he repeats § 17 by its equivalent 'mens, xc, d. iii,' while
words have dropped out in § i to the eiifect of what is supplied in brackets. (Hefele, ii. 50, Eng. Tr., is
therefore in error here).
I would add that the same obvious principle of correcting a clearly corrupt figure by the writer's own
subsequent reference to it, enables us also to correct the last figures of § 2 by those of § 5, to correct the items
by the sum total of §§ 6, 7, and lastly to correct the corrupt readings ' Gregorius ' for Georgius, and 'Constans '
for Constantius, by the many uncorrupt places which shew that the annalist himself was perfectly aware of
the right names.
In one passage alone (§ 13 ' Athyr' twice for Mechir, cf. Fest. Ind. viii) is conjecture really needed; but
even here the consuls are correctly given, and support the right date.
We are now in a position to construct tables of 'exiles' and 'quiet' periods from the Hisforia as
corrected by itself.
Table B. Exiles, ^'c, of Athan asius.
Exiles lasted
Vo.
Years Mo.
Days
I
(a) ii iv
xi
(b
2
Vll VI
111
(b
3
VI
XIV
4
1 111
xxii
5
IV
XVll VI
•sx
beginning
Epiphi 17, 335 (July 11)
Pharmuthi 21, 339 (Apr.
Mechir 13, 356 (Feb. 8)
Paophi 27, 362 (Oct. 24)
Paophi 8, 365 (Oct. 5)
Total Exiles
16)
No.
I
2
3
4
5
6
Quiet periods begin
Payni 14, 328 (June 8)
(b) Athyr 27, 337 (Nov. 23)
Paophi 24, 346 (Oct. 21)
Mechir 27, 362 (Feb. 21)
(c) Mechir 19, 364 (Feb. 14)
Mechir 7, 366 (Feb. i)
Total ' quiet ' (to June 8, 368)
lasting
Years Mo.
Days
Vll
1
iii (b)
xxiv (b)
i
IV
IX
111
xix(§5)
Vlll
(§10)
Vll
xvii (b)
11
IV
vii (a)
XXll
V
z
_ N.B. In the above Table, (a) denotes dates or figures directly implied in the existing text, (b) those implied
by it in cotJibination with other sources, (c) those based on conjectural emendation of the existing text. All
unmarked data are expressly given.
Table B shews the deliberate and careful calculation which runs through the system of our annalist.
Once or twice he indulges in a round figure, exiles i and 5 are each a day too long by the Egyptian calendar,
and this is set off by his apparently reckoning the fifth quiet period as two days too short. But the writer
clearly knew his own mind. In fact, the one just ground on which we might distrust his chronology is its
systematic character. He has a thorough scheme of his own, which he carries out to a nicety. Now such
a chronology is not necessarily untrustw orthy. Its consistency may be artificial ; on the other hand, it may be
due to accurate knowledge of the facts. Whether this is so or not must be ascertained partly from a writer's
known opportunities and capacity, partly from his agreement or discrepancy with other sources of knowledge.
Now our annalist wrote in the time of Theophilus (385 — 412), and may therefore rank as a contemporary
of Athanasius (cf. Prolegg. ch. v.) His opportunities therefore were excellent. As to his capacity, his work
bears every trace of care and skill. He is no historian, nor a stylist, but as an annalist he understood what
he was doing. As to agreement with other data, we remark to begin with that it was the publication of
this fragment in the i8th century that first shed a ray of light on the Erebus and Chaos of the chronology
of the Council of Sardica and its adjacent events ; that it at once justified the critical genius of Montfaucon,
Tillemont and others, against the objections with which their date for the death of Athanasius ^ was assailed, and
here again upset the confused chronological statements of the fifth-century historians in favour of the incidental
evidence of many more primary authorities 3. But most important of all is its confirmation by the evidence of
the Festal Letters discoveied in 1842, and especially by their Index, the so-called ' Chronicon Athanasianum.'
It is evident at a glance that our annalist is quite independent of the Index, as he gives many details which
it does not contain. But neither can the Index be a compilation from the annalist. Each writer had access to
information not embodied in the other, and there is no positive evidence that either used the other in any way.
When they agree, therefore, their evidence has the greatest possible weight. Their main heads of agreement are
indicated in the Chronological Table, Prolegg. sub fin.
It remains to notice shortly the two digressions on the doings of Eudoxius and the Anomoeans (§§ 2, 12 of
Migne, paragraphs II, IX of Gallandi). Here the annalist is off his own ground, and evidently less well informed.
In § 2 we leam nothing of interest : but the ' Ecthesis ' of the Anomoeans in par. IX is of importance, and only
too evidently authentic. It still awaits a critical examination, and it is not easy to give it its exact place in the
history of the later Arianism. Apparently it belongs to the period 360 — 364, when the Anomoeans were organising
their schism (Gwatkin, pp. 226, 180) the names being those of the ultra- Arians condemned by the Homceans in
360 (Prolegg. ch. ii. § ifin.).
The contrast between the vagueness of statement in these digressions, and the writer's firmness of touch in
dealing with Alexandrian affairs is most significant.
The fragment runs as follows :
HISTORIA ACEPHALA.
I. I. The Emperor Constantius also wrote concerning
the return of Athanasius, and among the Emperor's
letters this one too is to be found.
2. And it came to pass after the death of Gregory
that Athanasius returned from the city of Rome and the
parts of Italy, and entered Alexandria Paophi xxiv,
Coss. Constantius IV, Constans III (October 21, 346) ;
that is after [vii] years vi [months and iii days,] and
3 But our annalist gives May 3, while Fest. Ind. gives May 2,
the day solemnised in the Coptic Martjrrologies ( Mai, Script. Vett.
vol. 4, part 2, pp. 29, 114), and doubtless the right one. Perhaps,
if Athanasius died in the night of May 2-3, the former day might
be chosen for his commemoration, while our annalist may still be
literally exact 3 See Tillem. viii. 719 sgq.
INTRODUCTION: HISTORTA ACEPHALA.
497
remained quiet at Alexandria ix' years iii' months [and
xix days].
II. Now after his return, Coss. Limenius3 and Catu-
linus (349), Theodore 3% Narcissus s"*, and George, with
others, came to Constantinople, wishing to persuade
Paul to communicate with them, who received them
not even with a word, and answered their greeting with
an anathema. So they took to themselves Eusebius of
Nicomedia3% and laid snares for the most blessed Paul,
and lodging a calumny against him concerning Constans
and Magnentius, expelled him from CP. that they
might have room there, and sow the Arian heresy.
Now the people of CP., desiring the most blessed
Paul, raised continual riots to prevent his being taken
from the city, for they loved his sound doctrine. The
Emperor, however, was angry, and sent Count Her-
mogenes to cast him out ; but the people, hearing this,
dragged forth Hermogenes through the midst of the
town. From which matter they obtained a pretext
against the Bishop, and exiled him to Armenia. Theo-
dore and the rest wishing to place in the See of that
Town Eudoxius, an ally and partisan of the Arian heresy,
ordained [Bishop] of Germanicia, while the people were
stirred to riot, and would not allow any one to sit in the
See of blessed Paul, — they took Macedonius, a pres-
byter of Paul, and ordained him bishop of the town of
CP., whom the whole assembly of bishops condemned,
since against his own father he had disloyally received
laying on of hands from heretics.
However, after Macedonius had communicated with
them and signed, they brought in pretexts of no import-
ance, and removing him from the Church, they instal
the aforesaid Eudoxius of Anlioch^'', whence [the par-
takers] in this secession are called Macedonians, making
shipwreck concerning the Holy Spirit.
III. 3. After this time Athanasius, hearing that there
was to be disturbance against him, the Emperor Con-
stantius* being in residence at Milan (353), sent to court
a vessel with v Bishops, Serapion of Thmuis, Triadel-
phus of Nicotas, Apollo of Upper Cynopolis, Ammonius
of Pachemmon, . . . and iii Presbyters of Alexandria.
Peter the Physician, Astericus, and Phileas. After their
setting sail from Alexandria, Coss. Constantius VI
Augustus, and Constantius* Caesar II, Pachom xxiv
(May 19, 353), presently four days after Montanus of
the Palace entered Alexandria Pachom xxviii, and gave
a letter of the same Constantius'' Augustus to the bishop
Athanasius, forbidding him to come to court, on which
account the bishop was exceedingly desolate, and the
whole people much troubled s. So Montanus, ac-
complishing nothing, set forth, leaving the bishop at
Alexandria.
4. Now after a while Diogenes, Imperial Notary,
came to Alexandria in the month of Mensor (August,
355) Coss. Arbetion and Lollianus : tliat is ii years
and v months s» from when Montanus left Alexandria.
And Diogenes pressed every one urgently to compel
the bishop to leave the town, and afflicted all not a
little. Now on the vi day of the month Thoth, he
made a sharp attempt to besiege the church, and he
spent iv months in his efforts, that is from the month
Mensor, or from the [first] day of those intercalated
until the xxvi day of Choiac (Dec. 23). But as the
people and the judges strongly resisted Diogenes, Dio-
genes returned without success on the xxvi day of the
§5
I Corrected from §§5, 17, in/r. ; text 'xvL' » Corrected from
; text ' 6 months." 3 Text ' Hypathis.' 3» Of Heraclea.
Si-'Cf. A/>ol. Fug. I, &c., &c.
3" Bishop of CP. 338 — 341. On his death Paul was restored,
but Macedonius appointed by the Arians. This was in 341-2.
The final e.>:pulsion and death of Paul was about the date given
in the text; but the events of several years are lumped together
without clear distinction. 3* In 360.
4 Text ' Constans.' This passage (3—5), isMised by Soz. iv. 9.
5 Fatigatus,' Soz. eTapa,\6');(rai'. 5" Cf. Afol. Const. 22;
read ii years ii months.
said month Choiac, Coss. Arbetion and Lollianus, after
iv months as aforesaid.
IV. 5. Now Duke Syrianus, and Hilary the Notary,
came from Egypt to Alexandria on the tenth day of
Tybi (Jan. 6, 356) after Coss. Arbetion and Lollia-
nus. And sending in front all the legions of soldiers
throughout Egypt and Libya, the Duke and the Notary
entered the Church of Theonas with their whole force
of soldiers by night, on the xiii day of Mechir, during
the night preceding the xiv. And breaking the doors
of the Church of Theonas, they entered with an inrinite
force of soldiers. But bishop Athanasius escaped their
hands, and was saved, on the aforesaid xiv of Mechir*.
Now this happened ix years iii rnonths and xix days
from the Bishop's return from Italy. But when the
Bishop was delivered, liis presbyters and people re-
mained in possession of the Churches, and holding
communion iv months, until there entered Alexandria
the prefect Cataphronius and Count Heraclius in the
month Pahyni xvi day, Coss. Constantius'' VIII and
Julianus Caesar I (June 10, 356).
V. 6. And four days after they entered*" the Athana-
sians were ejected from the Churches, and they were
handed over to those who belonged to George 7, and
were expecting him as Bishop. So they received the
Churches on the xxi day of Paliyni. Moreover George^
arrived at Alexandria, Coss. Constantius'' IX, and Juli-
anus Cassar II, Mechir xxx (Feb. 24, 357), that is,
eight months and xi days from when his party received
the Churches. So George? entered Alexandria, and
kept the Churches xviii whole months : and then the
common people attacked him in the Church of Diony-
sius, and he was hardly delivered with danger and
a great struggle on the i day of the month Thoth, Coss.
Tatianus and Cerealis (Aug. 29, 358). Now George'
was ejected from Alexandria on the x^ day after the riot,
namely v of Paophi (Oct. 2). But they who belonged
to Bishop Athanasius, ix days after the departure of
George, that is on the xiv of Pa[ophi], cast out the men of
George', and held the Churches two months and xiv
days ; until there came Duke Sebastian from Egypt and
cast them out, and again assigned the Churches to
the party of George on the xxviii day of the month
Choiac (Dec. 24).
7. Now ix whole months after the departure of
George from Alexandria, Paulus the Notary arrived
Pahyni xxix, Coss. Eusebius, Hypatius (June 23, 359),,
and published an Imperial Order on behalf of George,
and coerced many in vengeance for him. And [ii years
and] V months after, George came to Alexandria Athyr
xxx (Coss. Taurus, and I'lorenrius) from court (Nov. 26,
361), that is iii years and two months after he had fled.
And at Antioch they of the Avian heresy, casting out
the Paulinians from the Church, appointed Meletius.
When he would not consent to their evil mind, they
ordained Euzoius a presbyter of George' of Alexandria
in his stead.
VI. 8. Now George, having entered Alexandria as
aforesaid on the xxx Athyr, remained safely in the town
iii days, that is [till] iii Choiac. For, on the iv day of
that same montli, the prefect Gerontius announced the
death of the Emperor Constantius, and that Julianus
alone held the whole Empire. Upon which news, the
citizens of Alexandria and all shouted against George,
and with one accord placed him under custody. And
he was in prison bound with iron from the aforesaid
iv day of Choiac, up to the xxvii of the same month,
xxiv days. For on the xxviii day of the same month
early in the morning, nearly all the people of that town
led forth George from prison, and also the Count who
was with him, the Superintendent of the building of the
6 Text throughout ' Methir.' 6» Supr. p. ^gcK
7 Text ' Gregory ; ' §§ 6, 7 are used bj Soz. iv. 10, § 8 by Soz. v. 7.
6 Read ' 34th.'
VOL. IV.
K k
498
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
Church which is called Csesareum, and killed them
both, and carried their bodies round through the midst
of the town, that of George on a camel, but that of
Dracontius, men dragging it by ropes ; and so having
insulted them, at about the vii hour of the day, they
burnt the bodies of each.
VII. 9. Now in the next .... day of Mechir the x
day of the month, after Coss. Taurus and Florentius
(Feb. 4, 362), an order of the Emperor Julian was
published commanding those things to be restored to
the idols and temple attendants and the public ac-
count, which in former times had been taken away from
them.
10. But after iii days, Mechir xiv, an order was given
of the same Emperor Julian, also of the Vicar Modestus,
to Gerontius prefect, ordering all Bishops hitherto de-
feated by factions and exiled to return to their towns
and provinces. Now this letter was published on the
following day Mechir xv, while subsequently an edict
also of the prefect Gerontius was published, by which
the Bishop Athanasius was ordered to return to his
Church. And xii days after the publication of this
Edict Athanasius was seen at Alexandria, and entered
the Church in the same month Mechir, xxvii day, so
that there is from his flight which took place in the
times of Syrianus and Hilary till his return, when
Julianus .... Mechir xxvii. He remained in the
Church until Paophi xxvi, Coss. Mamertinus and
Nevitta (Oct. 23, 362), viii whole months.
11. Now on the aforesaid day, Paophi xxvii, he [the
prefect] published an Edict of the Emperor Julianus, that
Athanasius, Bishop, should retire from Alexandria, and
no sooner was the Edict published, than the Bishop left
the town and abode round about Thereu'. Soon after
liis depaiture Olympus the prefect, in obedience to
the same™ Pythiodoius, and those who were with him,
most difficult persons, sent into exile Paulas and Aste-
ricius, presbyters of Alexandria, and directed them to
live at the town of Andropolis.
VIII. 12. Now Olympus the same prefect, in the
month Mensor, xxvi day, Coss. Julianus Augustus IV.
and Sallustius (Aug. 20, 363), announced that Julian
the Emperor was dead, and that Jovianus a Christian
was Emperor. And in the following month, Thoth xviii,
a letter of the Emperor Jovianus came to Olympus the
prefect that only the most high God should be wor-
shipped, and Christ, and that the peoples, holding
communion in the Churches, should practise religion.
Moreover Paulus and Astericius, the aforesaid presby-
ters, returned from exile at the town of Andropolis,
and entered Alexant'.ria, on the x day of Thoth, after
X months.
13. Now Bishop Athanasius, having tarried as afore-
said at Thereon, went up to the higher parts of Egypt
as far as Upper Hermopolis in the Thebaid, and as
far as Antinoopolis. And while he was staying in these
places, it was learned that the Emperor Julian was
dead, and that Jovian a Christian was Emperor. So
the Bishop entered Alexandria secretly, his arrival not
being known to many, and went by sea to meet the
Empeior Jovian, and afterwards, Church affairs being
settled "% received a letter, and came to Alexandria and
entered into the Church on the xix day of Athyr" Coss.
Jovianus and Varronianus. From his leaving Alexan-
dria according to the order of Julian until he arrived on
the aforesaid xix day of Athyr" after one year and
iii months, and xxii days.
IX. Now at CP. Eudoxius of Germanicia held the
Church, and there was a division between him and
Macedonius ; but by means of Eudoxius there went forth
another worse heresy from the spurious [teaching] of
9 Compare ' Cheieu ' in Vii. Ant. 86. '° The previous
reference to him has dropped out ; see Fest. Ind. xxxv.
loa Used by Soz. vi. 5. '' Read Mechir, i.e. Feb. 14, 364.
the Arians, Aetius and Patricius"* of Nicaea, who
communicated with Eunomius, Heliodorus, and Ste-
phen. And Eudoxius adopting this, communicated
with Euzoius, Bishop at Antioch, of the Arian sect, and
they deposed on a pretext Seleucius "'' and Macedonius,
and Hypatian'", and other xv Bishops belonging to
them, since they would not receive ' Unlike ' nor
' Creature of the Uncreated.' Now their Exposition is
as follows : —
Exposition of Patricius "» and Aetius, who communi-
cated with Eunomius, Heliodorus, and Stephen.
These are the attributes of God, Unbegotten, without
origin. Eternal, not to be commanded. Immutable, All-
seeing, Infinite, Incomparable, Almighty, knowing the
future without foresight ; without beginning ". These do
not belong to the Son, for He is commanded, is under
command, is made from nothing, has an end, is not com-
pared [with the Father], the Father surpasses Him . . .
of Christ is found : as pertaining to the Father, He is
ignorar.t of the future. He was not God, but Son of
God ; God of those who are after Him : and in this He
possesses invariable likeness with the Father, namely
He sees all things because all things . . • because He is
not changed in goodness ; [but] not like in the quality
of Godhead, nor in nature. But if we said that He was
born of the quality of Godhead, we say that He re-
sembles the offspring of serpents"*, and that is an
impious saying : and like as a statue produces rust from
itself, and will be consumed by the rust itself, so also
the Son, if He is produced from the nature of the
Father, will consume the Father. But from the work,
and the newress of work, the Son is naturally God, and
not from the Nature, but from another nature like as
the Father, but not from Him. For He was made the
image of God, and we are out of God, and from God.
Inasmuch as all things are from God, and the Son also,
as if from something [else]. Like as iron if it has
rust will be dhninished, hke as a body if it produces
worms is eaten up, like as a wound if it produce dis-
charges will be consumed by them, so [thinks] he who
says that the Son is from the Nature of the Father ; now
let him who does not say that the Son is like the
Father be put outside the Church and be anathema. If
we shall say that the Son of God is God, we bring in
Two without beginning : we call Him Image of God ;
he who calls Him 'out from God' Sabellianises. And
he who says that he is ignorant of the nativity of God
Manicheanizes : if any one shall say that the Essence of
the Son is like the Essence of the Father unbegotten,
he blasphemes. For just as snow and white lead are
similar in whiteness but dissimilar in kind, so also the
Essence of the Son is other than the lissence of the
Father. But snow has a different whiteness '3 . . .
Be pleased to hear that the Son is like the Father
in His operations ; like as Angels cannot comprehend
the Nature of Archangels, let them please to understand,
nor Archangels the Nature of a Cherubin, nor Cherubins
the Nature of the Holy Spirit, nor the Holy Spirit the
Nature of the Only-tegotten, nor the Only-begotten the
nature of the Unbegotten God.
14. Now when the Bishop Athanasius was about com-
ing from Antioch to Alexandria, the Arianc Eudoxius,
Theodore, Sophronius, Euzoius and Hilary took counsel
and appointed Lucius, a presbyter of George, to seek
audience of the Emperor Jovian at the Palace, and to
say what is contained in the copies '3*. jslow hen we
have omitted some less necessary matter,
"» Can this be the Hypatiiis of Philst. ix. 19? For Helio-
dorus and Stephen, see Hist. Ar. p. 294; de Syn. 12; Theod.
H.E. ii. 28, and Gwatkin, Studies, pp. 226, 180 note.
II'' i.e. Eleusius.
"= i.e. Eustathius. " Lat. 'dominio' for apxr/.
121' Cf. Matt. iii. 7. '3 Text imperfect, ' Externo autemcon-
niventes oculos egressi.' '3 i.e. the memoranda printed
a.s Appendix to Letter 56. § 14 is used, but badly, by Soz. vi, s.
INTRODUCTION: HISTORIA ACEPHALA.
499
X. 15. Now after Jovian, Valentiuian and Valens
having been somewhat rapidly summoned to the throne,
a decree of theirs, circulated everywhere, which also
was delivered at Alexandria on Pachon x, Coss. Valen-
tinian and Valens (May 5, 365), to the effect that the
Bishops deposed and expelled from their Churches
under Constantius, who had in the time of Julian's
reign reclaimed for themselves and taken back their
Bishopric, should now be cast out anew from the
Churches, a penalty being laid on the courts of a fine of
ccc pounds of gold, unless that is they should have
[ba]nished the Bishops from the Churches and towns.
On which account at Alexandria great confusion and
riot arose, insomuch that the whole Church was troubled,
since also the officials were few in number with the
prefect Flavian and his staff: and on account of the
imperial order and the fine of gold they were urgent
that the Bishops should leave the town ; the Christian
multitude resisting and gainsaying the officials and the
judge, and maintaining that the Bishop Athanasius did
not come under this definition nor under the Imperial
order, because neither did Constantius banish him, but
€ven restored him. Likewise also Julian persecuted
him ; he recalled all, and him for the sake of idolatry
he cast out anew, but Jovian brought him back. This
opposition and riot went on until the next month Payni,
on the xiv day ; for on this day the prefect Flavian
made a report, declaring that he had consulted the
Emperors on this very point which was stirred at
Alexandria, and so they all became quiet in a short
time '3\
XI. 16. iv months and xxiv days after, that is on
Paophi viii, the Bishop Athanasius left the Church
secretly by night, and retired to a villa near the
New River '3<;. But the prefect Flavian and Duke Vic-
torinus not knowing that he had retired, on the same
night arrived at the Church of Dionysius with a force of
soldiers : and having broken the back door, and entered
the upper parts of the house in search of the Bishop's
apartment, they did not find him, for, not long before
he had retired, and he remained, staying at the afore-
said property from the above day, Paophi viii, till
Mechir vi, that is iv whole months (Oct. 5 Jan. 31).
After this, the Imperial notary Bresidas, in the same
month Mechir came to Alexandria with an Imperial
letter, ordering the said Bishop Athanasius to return to
Town, and hold the Churches as usual ; and on the vii
day of the month Mechir, after Coss. Valentinian and
Valens, that is Coss. Gratian and Degalaifus, the said
notary Bresidas with Duke Victorinus and Flavian the
Prefect assembled at the palace and announced to the
officers of the courts who were present, and the people,
that the Emperors had ordered the Bishop to return to
town, and straightway the said Bresidas the notary went
forth with the officers of the courts, and a multitude of
the people of the Christians to the aforesaid villa, and
taking the Bishop Athanasius with the Imperial order,
led him in to the Church which is called that of Diony-
sius on the vii day of the month Mechir.
XII. 17. From Coss. Gratian and Dagalaifus (366)
to the next consulships of Lupicinus and Jovinus (367)
and that of [Valentinian II. and] Valens II. on Payni
xiv (June 8, 368) in [this] Consulship xl [years of the
Bishopric] of Athanasius are finished. Out of which
[years] he abode at Treveri in Gaul [ii years iv months
'3'' §1 15, 16 are used by S02. vL 1
subuib.
<y i.e> in tlie western
xi days '", and in Italy and the West] xc months and
iii days. At Alexandria [and] in uncertain places in
hiding, when he was being harassed by Hilary the
notary and the Duke, l\xii months and xiv days. In
Egypt and Antioch upon journeys xv months and xxii
days : upon the property near the new river iv months.
The result will be exactly vi ' months and xvii years
and^ XX days. Moreover, he remained in quiet at Alex-
andria xxii years and v months x days. But also, he
twice stayed a little time outside Alexandria in his last
journey and at Tyre and at CP. Accordingly, the
result will be as I have stated above, xl years of the
episcopate of Athanasius until Payni [x]iv, Coss. Valen-
tinian and Valens. And in the following consulate of
Valentinian and Victor, Payni xiv, i year, and in the
following consulships of Valentinian [III] and Valens
III Payni xiv, and in the following Consulships of
Gratian and Probus, [and the next of Modestus and
Arintheus], and another consulshij) of Valentinian [IV]
and Valens IV, on Pathon viii he fails asleep (May 3,
373)-
XIII. 18. Now in the aforesaid consulship of Lupi-
cinus and Jovinus, Lucius being specially desirf)us to
claim for himself the episcopate of the Arians a long
time after he had left Alexandria, arrived in the aforesaid
consulship, and entered the town secretly by night on
the xxvi day of the month Thoth (Sept. 24, 367; : and
as it is said, abode in a certain small house, keeping in
hiding for that day. But next day he went to a house
where his mother was staying ; and his arrival being
known at once all over the town, the whole people
assembled and blamed his entry. And Duke Trajanus
and the Prefect were extremely dis]3leased at his ir-
rational and bold arrival, and sent officials to cast him
out of the town. So the officials came to Lucius, and
considering all of them that the people were angry and
very riotous a,L;ainst him they feared to bring him out of
the house by themselves, lest he should be killed by the
multitude. And they reported this to the judges. And
presently the judges themselves, Duke Trajan, and the
Prefect Tatianus [came] to the place with many soldiers,
entered the house and brought out Lucius theinselves at
the vii hour of the day, on the xxvii day of Thoth.
Now while Lucius was following the judges, and the
whole people of the town after them, Christians and
Pagans, and of divers religions, all alike with one breath,
and with one mind, and of one accord, did not cease,
from the house whence he was led, through the middle
of the town, as far as the house of the Duke, from
shouting, and hurling at him wiihal insults and criminal
charges, and from crying, 'Let him be taken out of the
town.' However, the Duke took him into his house,
and he stayed with him for the remaining hours of the
day, and the whole night, and on the follov\ing the
xxviii of the same month, the Duke early in the morning,
and taking him in charge as far as Nicoiiolis 3, handed
him over to soldiers to be escorted from Egypt.
19. Now whereas Athanasius died on the viii of the
month Pachon, the v day before he fell asleep, he or-
dained Peter, one of the ancient presbyters. Bishop, who
carried on the Episcopate, following him in all things.
After whom Timothy his B[rotherj succeeded to the
Episcopate for iv years. After him Theophilus from
[being] deacon was ordained Bishop (3S5). The End.
14 i.e. July II, 335, to Nov. 23, 337, see above, p. 496.
I Migne xi. (misprint). 2 The following 14 words ai«
left out by an error in Sievers. 3 A short djsumce east of
Alexandria, see Vict. Gr.and Ro?n. Geog. s,v.
K K «
B.
THE FESTAL LETTERS, AND THEIR INDEX,
Or Chroiiicon Athanasianum,
The latter document is from the hand, it would seem, of the original collector of the Easter
Letters of Athanasius (yet see infr. note 6"). He gives, in a paragraph corresponding to each
Easter in the episcopate of Athanasius, a summary of the calendar data for the year, a notice
of the most important events, and especially particulars as to the Letter for the Easter in ques-
tion, viz., Whether any peculiar circumstances attended its publication, and whether for some
reason the ordinary Letter was omitted.
The variations of practice which had rendered the Paschal Feast a subject of controversy
from very early times (see Did. Christ. Aiitiq. Easter) had given rise to the custom of the
announcement of Easter at a convenient interval beforehand by circular letters. In the third
century the Bishops of Alexandria issued such letters (e.g. Dionysius in Eus. H.E. vii. 20), and
at the Council of Nicaea, where the Easter question was dealt with {ad Afros. 2), the Alex-
andrian see was requested to undertake the duty of announcing the correct date to the principal
foreign Churches as well as to its own suffragan sees. (This is doubted in the learned article
Paschal Letters D.C.A. p. 1562, but the statement of Cyril. Alex, in his ' Prologus Paschalis '
is express : cf. Ideler 2, 259. The only doubt is, whether the real reference is to Sardica, see
Index XV. and Ep. 18.) This was probably due to the astronomical learning for which
Alexandria was famous *. At any rate we have fragments of the Easter letters of Dionysius and
of Theophilus, and a collection of the Letters of Cyril *».
The Easter letters of Athanasius were, until 1842, only known to us by allusions in Jerome
(de V. illustr. 87) and others, and by fragments in Cosmas Indicopleustes purporting to be
taken from the 2nd, 5th, 6th, 22nd, 24th, 28th, 29th, 40th, and 45th. Cardinal Mai had also
shortly before the discovery of the ' Corpus ' unearthed a minute fragment of the 13 th. But in
1842 Archdeacon Tattam brought home from the Monastery of the Theotokos in the desert of
Skete a large number of Syriac MSS., which for over a century European scholars had been
vainly endeavouring to obtain. Among these, when deposited in the British Museum, Cureton
discovered a large collection of the Festal Letters of Athanasius, with the ' Index,' thus realising
the suspicion of Montfaucon (Migne xxvi.) that the lost treasure might be lurking in some
Eastern monastery. Another consignment of MSS. from the same source produced some
further portions, which were likewise included in the translation revised for the present
volume 5.
(\) Number of Festal Letters of Athanasius. — This question, which is of first-rate importance for the chronology
of the period, must be regarded as settled, at any rate until some discovery which shall revolutionise all existing
data. The number 45, which was the maximum known to antiquity 5% is confirmed by the Index, and by the
fact that the citations from Cosmas (see above) tally with the order of the Letters in this Syriac version in every
case where the letter is preserved entire, while Letter 39, preserved by a different writer, also tallies with the
reference to it in the Index. It is therefore unassailably established on our existing evidence that the last Easter
letter of Ath. was his '45th,' in other words that 45 is ihe full or noDual number of his festal fetters. This
clinches the reckoning of the Index and Hist. Actpk. that he was bishop for 45 Easters (329 — 373 inclusive), i.e.
for parts of 46 years (328 — 373 inclusive). Moreover it corroborates, and is rivetted firm by, the statement of
Cyril. Alex. Ep. i, that Athan. graced the see of Alexandria ' fully 46 years.' ' II le dit en voulant faire son elo.^e :
de sorte qu'il y a tout lieu de croire qu'il n'a point passe les 46 ans : car pour peu qiCil fust entre dans la 47™*
annee, S. Cyrille auroit dH 77aturellement luy donner 47 ans^.' So Tillemont (viii. 719), whose opinion is all the
more valuable from the fact that he is unable to harmonise it with his date for the accession of Ath., and accord-
ingly forgets, p. 720 (sub. fn.), what he has said on the previous page.
But we observe that many of the 45 Letters are represented in the * corpus ' by blanks. This is doubtless
often the result of accidental loss. But the Index informs us that in several years, owing to his adversities, 'the
Pope was unable to write.' This however may be fairly understood to refer to the usual public or circular letter.
Often when unable to write this, he sent a few cordial lines to some friend (Letter 12) or to the clergy (17, 18)
or people (29 ? see notes there) of Alexandria, in order that the true Easter might be kept (cf. the Arian blun ler
in 340, Ind. xii, with the note to Serapion Letter 12 from Rome). But occasionally the Index is either
corrupt or mistaken, e.g. No. xiii, where the Pope is stated to have written no letter, while yet the ' Corpus '
contains one, apparently entire and of the usual public kind. We may therefore still hope for letters or fragments
for any of the ' missing ' years.
4 So Leo Magnus {,Ep. ad Marcian. Imp.") 'apud yEsyptios
huius supputationis antiquitus tradita peritia.'
4» We trace differences of opinion in spite of the authority of
the Alexandrian Pope in ' Index ' xii, xv, xxi, and Ep. i8.
5 Further details in Migne, P.G. xxvi. 1339 s/jy. and Preface
(by Williams?) to Oxford Transl. of Fes i. Epp. (Parker, 1854.)
S» The very late Arabic Life of Ath. alone gives 47 (Migne
XXV. p. cell.), a statement which we may safely ignore in view of
the general character of the document which is ' crowded with
incredible trivialities and follies' (Montf.), outbidding by tar
the ' unparalleled rubbish ' (id.) of the worst of the Greek bio-
graphies (see Migne xxv. p. liv. sq.).
o The italics are ours. Cf. Rutin. ff.E. ii. 3, ' xlvi anrtff
»acerdotii sui.'
INTRODUCTION: FESTAL LETTERS, AND INDEX. 501
(2) The Festal Letters are fully worthy to rank with any extant writings of Athanasius. The
same warmth, vigour, and simplicity pervades them as we find elsewliere in his writin"-s
especially in such gems as the letter to Dracontius {Ep. 49). Their interest, however (apart
from chronology), is mainly personal and practical. Naturally the use and abuse of Fast and
Festival occupy a prominent place throughout Repeatedly he insists on the joyfulness of
Christian feasts, and on the fact that they are typical of, and intended to colour the whole
period of the Christian's life. We gather from Ep. 12 that Lent was kept less strictly in Egypt
than in some other Christian countries. He insists not only upon fasting, but upon purityand
charity, especially toward the poor {Ep. i. 11, of. Ep. 47. 4, &c.). We trace the same ready
command of Scripture, the same grave humour in the unexpected turn given to some familiar
text {Ep. 39) as we are used to in Athanasius. The Eucharist is a feeding upon the Word
(4. 3), and to be prepared for by amendment of life, repentance, and confession of sin
(i.e. to God, Ep. 7. 10). Of special importance is the Canon of Holy Scripture in Ep. 39,
on which see Prolegg. ch. iv. § 4.
It should be observed that the interval before Easter at which notice was given varied
greatly. Some letters (e.g. i, 2, 20) by a natural figure of speech, refer to the Feast as actually
come ; but others (17, 18) were certainly written as early as the preceding Easter. Letter 4
was written not long before Lent, but was (§ i) unusually late. The statement of Cassian
referred to below (note to Ep. 17) is therefore incorrect at any rate for our period.
(3) The Index to the Festal Letters. — This chronicle, so constantly leferred to throughout this vohime, is of
uncertain date, but probably (upon internal evidence) only ' somewhat later ' (Hefele, E. Tr. vol. ii. p. 50) than
Athanasius himself. Its special value is in the points where it agrees with the Hist. Aceph. [supr. Prolegg. ch. v. ),
where we recognise the accredited reckoning of the Alexandrian Church as represented by Cyril and Proterius
(see Tillem. ubi supr.). The writer undoubtedly makes occasional slips (cf. Index iii. with Letter 'w. and p. 512,
note I, Index xiii. with Letter^" xiii. !), and the text would be a miracle if it had come down to us uncorrupt
(see notes passim^ : but on the main dates he is consistent with himself, with the Chrott. Aceph. and (so far as
they come in contact) with the notices of the Alexandrian bishops above mentioned.
The writer's method, however, must be attended to if we are to avoid a wrong impression as to his accuracy.
Firstly, his year is not the Julian but the Egy|itian year {'mfr. Table C) from Aug. 29 to Aug. 28. Each year is
designated by the M^i/ consuls who come into office in the fifth month. Secondly, in each year he takes a leading
event or events, round which he groups antecedent or consequent facts, which oftenbelong to otheryears. Two
or three examples will make this clear. (a) Year Aug. 30, 335 — Aug. 28, 336 : k-ading event, exile of
Athanasius (he reaches CP. Oct. 30, 335, leaves for Gaul [Feb. 7], both in the same Egyptian year).
Antecedent : His departure for Tyre July 11. 335, at end oi previous Egyptian Year. (;3) The ' eventful' year
Aug. 337 — Aug. 338 : leading event, triumphant return of Athanasius from Gaul, Oct. 21, 337. Antecedent :
death of Constantine on previous 22nd of May (i.e. 337 '). (7) Year 342-3 : leading event. Council of Sardica
(summons issued, at any rate, before end of Aug. 343). Consequent events : temporary collapse of Arian party and
recantation of Ui-sacius and Valens (344 — 347? Further examples in Gwatkin, Studies, p. 105). Bearing this in
mind, the discriminating student will derive most important help from the study of the Index : when its data agree
with those derived from other good sources, they must be allowed first-rate authority. This is the principle
followed in the Prolegomena (ch. v.) and throughout this volume. On the main points in dispute, as shewn
above, we have to reckon with a compact uniform chronological system, checked and counter checked by careful
calculations [Hist. Aceph.), and transmitted by two independent channels ; in agreement, moreover, as concerns
the prior and posterior limits, with the reckoning adopted by the successors of Athanasius in the see.
N.B. — The translation of the Index and Festal Letters is revised by Miss Payne Smith from that contained
in the Oxford ' Library of the Fathers.' A German translation by Larsow was published at Berlin 1852. The
Latin Version (from an Italian translation) of Card. Mai is in Migne, xxvi. 135 1 ■fff.
The following Tables bear specially on the Festal Index.
Table 0. The Egyptian Year.
After the final settlement of Egypt by Augustus as a province of the Roman Empire, the use of the Julian
form of computation was established in Alexandria, the first day of the new Calendar being fixed to the 29th of
August, the 1st of Thot of the year in which the innovation took place ; from which period, six, instead of five,
supplementary days were added at the end of every fourth year ; so that the form of the Alexandrian year was as
follows. The months from Phamenoth 5 (Mar. l) onwards are unaffected by leap-year.
Pharmuthi • , .27 March
Pachon . . , .26 April
Paoni ( Payni) , . , 26 May
Epiphi . , , .25 June
Mesori . , . .25 July
Epagomena . • .24 August
N.B. — In leap-years, the Diocletian year (see p. 503, note 4) began on the previous Aug. 30, which was
iiccordingly the First of Thot, owing to the additional ' epagomenon ' which preceded it. Accordingly all the
months to Fhamenoth inclusive begin a day late. Then, the Julian intercalary day coming in as Feb. 29, Phar-
muthi and the succeeding months begin as shewn above. (See Ideler, vol. i, pp. 161, 164, also 140, 142.)
** Some phenomena might suggest (Hefele, ii. 88, note) that the Index was originally prefixed to another collection ol the letters,
and was copied by a collector or transcriber of our present corpus ; cf. Index xiii., note 17'', and p. 527, note i.
7 Misunderstood hy Hefele, vol. ii. p. 88 {E. Tra.).
Thot
. 29 August
Paophi .
. 28 September
Athyr .
. 28 October
Choiak .
. 27 November
Tybi
. 27 December
Mechir .
. 26 January
Phamenoth
. 25 February
502
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
TABLE D.
OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE INDEX TO THE
PASCHAL LETTERS.
N.B. — The Year of our Lord, the Golden Numbers, and Dominical Letter, and the date of Easter according
to the Modem Reckoning, are added. The age of the Moon on Easter-day is apparently given from ob-
servations or reckoned by some lost system (see Index x. xxii.) ; in about one case out of three it varies from the
modern reckoning, perhaps once or twice from corruption of text. The Epact is a day too little for 342, 344,
361, 362, 363 (see Galle in Larsow F. B, p. 48, sqq.).
Number
of
Year
Year
Easter Day.
Day
Epact
(age of
Sunday
T tt J
of
01
of
Moon
Letter and
Golden
Letter.
Diocl.
our Lord.
Egyptian
Roman
Modem
Liinar
on Mar.
Concur-
Indict".
Numbers.
Calendar.
Calendar.
Reckoning
Month.
22].
rentes.
...
44
328
19 Pharm.
XVIII Kah Mai
14 April
18
25
1 F
I
6
i
45
329
II Pharm.
VIII Id. April
6 April
22
6
2E
2
7
II
46
330
24 Pharm.
XIII KaL Mai
19 April
15
17
3D
3
8
III
47
331
16 Pharm.
HI Id. April
II April
18
28
4C
4
9
IV
48
332
7 Pharm.
IV Non. April
2 April
20
9
6 A
5
10
V
49
333
20 Pharm.
XVII Kal.Mai
'15 April
15
20
7G
6
11
VI
50
334
12 Pharm.
VII Id. April
7 April
17
I
I F
7
12
VII
51
335
4 Pharm.
III Kal. April
30 March
20
12
2E
8
13
VIII
52
336
23 Pharm.
XIV Kal. Mai
18 AprU
20
23
4C
9
14
IX
53
337
8 Pharm.
III Non. April
3 April
16
4
5B
10
15
X
54
338
30 Pham"".
VII Kal. April
26 March
18J
15
6 A
II
16
XI
55
339
20 Pharm.
XVII Kal. Mai
15 April
20
26
7G
12
17
XII
56
340
4 Pharm.
III KaL April
30 March
15
7
2E
13
18
XIII
57
341
24 Pharm.
XIII Kal. Mai
19 April
16
18
3D
14
»9
XIV
58
342
16 Pharm.
III Id. April
II April
16
29
4C
15
I
XV
59
343
I Pharm.
VI Kal. April
27 March
15
II
SB
1
2
XVI
60
344
20 Pharm.
XVII Kal. Mai
15 April
19
21
7G
2
3
XVII
61
345
12 Pharm.
VII Id. April
7 April
19
3
I F
3
4
XVIII
62
346
4 Pharm.
III Kal. April
^30 March
21
14
2E
4
5
XIX
63
347
17 Pharm.
Prid. Id. April
12 April
15
25
3D
5
6
XX
64
348
8 Pharm.
III Non. April
3 April
18
6
5B
6
7
XXI
65
349
30 Pham"".
VII Kal. April
326 March
19
17
6 A
7
8
XXII
66
350
13 Pharm.
VI Id. April
8 April
19
28
7G
8
9
XXIII
67
351
5 Pharm.
Prid. Kal. April
31 March
18
9
I F
9
10
XXIV
68
352
24 Pharm.
XIII Kah Mai
19 April
i8
20
3D
10
II
XXV
69
353
16 Pharm.
III Id. April
II April
21
I
4C
II
12
XXVI
70
354
I Pharm.
VI Kal. April
27 March
17
12
5B
12
13
XXVII
71
355
21 Pharm.
XVI Kal. Mai
16 April
18
23
6 A
13
14
XXVIII
72
356
12 Pharm.
VII Id. April
7 April
17
4
I F
14
15
XXIX
73
357
27 Pham'''.
X Kal. April
23 March
17
15
2E
IS
16
XXX
74
358
17 Pharm.
Prid. Id. April
12 April
17
26
3D
I
17
XXXI
75
359
9 Pharm.
Prid. Non. April
4 April
20
7
4C
2
18
XXXII
76
360
28 Pharm.
IX Kal. Mai
23 April
21
18
6 A
3
19
XXXIII
77
361
13 Pharm.
VI Id. April
8 April
17
29
7G
4
I
XXXIV
78
362
5 Pharm.
Prid. Kal. April
31 March
25
IJO
I F
5
2
XXXV
79
363
25 Pharm.
XII Kal. Mai
20 April
20
21
2E
6
3
XXXVI
80
364
9 Pharm.
Prid. Non. April
4 April
16
3
4C
7
4
XXXVII
81
365
I Pharm.
VI Kal. April
27 March
19
14
SB
8
5
XXXVIII
82
366
21 Pharm.
XVI Kal. Mai
16 April
20
25
6 A
9
6
XXXIX
83
367
6 Pharm.
Kal. April
I April
16
6
7G
10
7
XL
84
368
25 Pharm.
XII Kal. Mai
20 April
16
17
2E
II
8
XLI
85
369
17 Pharm.
Prid. Id. April
12 April
15
28
3D
12
9
XLII
86
370
2 Pharm.
V Kal. April
28 March
15
9
4C
13
10
XLIII
87
371
22 Pharm.
XV Kal. Mai
17 April
16
20
5B
14
II
XLIV
88
372
13 Pharm.
VI Id April
8 April
19
I
7G
IS
12
XLV
89
373
5 Pharm.
Prid. Kal. April
31 March
21
12
I F
I
13
« According to the usual Antegregorian rule, Easter would fall on April 22. « According to the usual rule, Easter
would fall on March 23 ; see Letter 18, note 3. 3 According to rule, Easter would fall on April 23, which perhaps was the
day really observed, as it agrees with the age of the moon ; but see note on Index No. xxi. 4 Read Moon 20, Epact xi.
K
INTRODUCTION: FESTAL INDEX.
503
INDEX.
An Index of the months of each year, and of the days,
and of the Indictions, and of the Consulates, and of the
Governors in Alexandria, and of all the Epacts, and of
those [days] which are named 'of the Gods',' and the
reason [any Letter] was not sent, and the returns from
exile =>— from the Festal Letters of Pope Athanasius.
The Festal Letters of Athanasius, Bishop of Alex-
andria, which he sent year by year, to the several cities
and all the provinces subject to him ; that is, from
Pentapolis, and on to Libya, Ammoniaca, the greater
and the lesser Oasis, Egypt, and Augustamnica, with
the Heptanomis of 3 the upper and middle Thebais ;
[commencing] from the 44th'* year of the Diocletian
Era, in which the Paschal Festival was on xvis Phar-
rnuthi ; xviii Kal. Mai ; xviii Moon ; when Alexander,
his predecessor, having departed this life on xxii Phar-
muthi*, he [Athan.] succeeded him after the Paschal
festival on xiv Pauni, Indict, i, Januarius and Justus
being Consuls, the governor Zenius of Italy being the
Prspfect of Egypt, Epact xxv ; Gods, i.
L (Aug. 29, 328, to Aug. 28, A.D. 32q.) In this
year, Easter-day was on xi Pharmuthi ; viii. Id. Ap. ;
xxii Moon ; Coss. Constantinus Aug. viii, Constantinus
Cses. IV ; the same governor Zenius being Praefect of
Egypt ; Indict, ii ; Epact vi ; Gods, ii. This was the
first Letter he [Athan.] sent ; for he was ordained
Bishop in the preceding year after the Paschal feast,
Alexander, as is known, having despatched one for that
year, before he was released from life. This was in the
45th of the Diocletian ^ra.
II. (329-330.) In this year, Easter-day was on xxiv
Phannuthi; xiiiKal. Mai; xvMoon; Coss. Gallicianus,
Symmachus ; the governor Magninianus the Cappado-
cian being Prasfect of Egypt ; Indict, iii ; Epact xvii ;
Gods, iii. In this year he went through the Thebais.
III. (330-331.) In this year, Easter-day was on xvi
Pharmutlii ; xviii Moon ; iii Id. Ap. ; Coss. Annius
Bassus, Ablavius; the governor Hyginus^" of Italy,
Prsefect of Egypt; Epact xxviii ; Indict, iv. He sent
this Letter while journeying on his return from the Im-
perial Court. For in this year he went to the Imperial
Court to the Emperor Constantine the Great, having been
summoned before him, on account of an accusation his
enemies made, that he had been appointed when too
young. He appeared, was thought worthy of favour and
honour, and returned ^^ when the fast was half finished.
IV. (331-332.) In this year, Easter-day was on xvii'
Pharmuthi ; xx Moon ; iv Non. Apr. ; Epact ix ; Gods,
vi ; Coss. Pacatianus, Hilarianus ; the same governor
Hyginus, Praefect of Egypt ; Indict, v. In this year he
went through Pentapolis, and was in Ammoniaca.
V. (332-333.) In this year, Easter-day was on xx
Pharmuthi ; xv Moon ; xvii Kal. Mai ; Epact xx ;
Gods, vii ; Coss. Dalmatius, Zenophilus ; the governor
Paternus^, Praefect of Egypt ; Indict, vi.
VI. (333-334.) In this year, Easter-day was on xii
Pharmuthi; xvii Moon; vii Id. Apr.; Indict, vii;
Epact i ; Gods, i ; Coss. Optatus, Paulinus ; the same
governor Paternus®* Prsefect of Egypt. In this year
' The 'Gods' correspond to the Concurrentcs/ i.e. to the days
of the week upon which Mar. 24 occurs in the year in question.
(See Table, and Ideler, 2. 261), and so to the 'Sunday letters,'
which follow the 'gods' in inverse order, 'a' corresponding to
years when there were 6 ' gods,' b to 5, &c.. f to i, g to 7.
* The meaning of these words is duubtful. Larsow renders
them ' the answers from abroad.' 3 Read ' and.'
4 i.e. the year beginning Aug. 30, 327 (328 being leap-year).
The 'Diocletian' era, or era 'of the martyrs,' was th;U. used by
the Egyptian Christians. It is incorrectly described in D.C.A.
s.v. Era ; see Ideler, ut supr.
5 Read xix (April 14). The corruption is easy in Syriac.
* April 17. 6" The heading to Efi. 3 gives Florentius.
^^ "This ought to have been placed under iv ; but see p. 512,
note 7. 7 Read vii. 8 Vid. Ep. Fesi. v. n. a.
8» The headings of Letters 6, 7, give Philagrius.
he went through the lower country. In it he was
summoned to a Synod, his enemies having previously
devised mischiei against him in Caesarea of Palestine;
but becoming aware of the conspiracy, he excused him-
self from attending.
VII. (334-335.) In this year, Easter-day was on
xiv^b Pharmuthi ; xx Moon ; iii Kal. Ap. ; Indict, viii ;
Epact xii ; Gods, ii ; Coss. Constantius", Albinus ; the
same governor Paternus, Praefect of Egypt.
y^II- (SSS-jS*^-) III tWs year, Easter-day was on
xxiii Pharmuthi ; xx Moon ; xiv Kal. Mai ; Indict, ix ;
Epact xxiii; Gods, iv ; Coss. Nepotianus, Facundus ;
the governor Philagrius, the Cappadocian, Prsefect of
Egypt. In this year he went to that Synod of his enemies
which was assembled at Tyre. Now he journeyed
from this place on xvii Epiphi^, but when a discovery
was made of the plot against him, he removed thence
and fled in an open boat to Constantinople. Arriving
there on ii Athyr '°, after eight days he presented himself
before the Emperor Constantine, and spoke plainly.
But his enemies, by various secret devices, influenced
the Emperor, who suddenly condemned him to exile,
and he set out on the tenth of Athyr'' to Gaul, to
Constans Caesar, the son of Augustus. On this account
he wrote no Festal Letter.
IX. (336-7.) In this year, Easter-day was on viii
Pharmuthi; xvi Moon; iv"' Non. Ap. ; Indict, x;
Epact iv; Gods, v; Coss. Felicianus, Titianus ; the
governor Philagrius, the Cappadocian, Praefect of Egypt.
He was in Treviri of Gaul, and on this account was
unable to write a Festal Letter.
X. (337-8.) In this year, Easter-day was on xxx
Phamenoth ; vii Kal. Ap. ; xix"'' Moon; Indict, xi ;
Epact XV ; Gods, vi ; Coss. Ursus, Polemius ; the
governor Theodorus", of Heliopolis, Prefect of Egypt.
In this year, Constantine having died on xxvii Pachon '^*,
Athanasius, now liberated, returned from Gaul triumph-
antly on xxvii '3 Athyr. In this year, too, there were
many events. Antony, the great leader, came to
Alexandria, and though he remained there only two
days, shewed himself wonderful in many things, and
healed many. He went away on the third of Messori '■*.
XI. (338-9.) In this year, Easter-day was on xx
Pharmuthi; xx Moon; xvii Kal. Mai; Epact xxvi ;
Gods, vii; Indict. xii; Coss. Constantius II, Constans I 'S;
the governor Philagrius, the Cappadocian, Praefect of
Egypt. In this year, again, there were many tumults.
On the xxii Phamenoth'* he was pursued in the night,
and the next day he fled from the Church of Theonas,
after he had baptized many. Then, four days after,
Gregorius the Cappadocian entered the city as Bishop.
XII. (339-340.) In this year, Easter-day was on
xiv '7 Pharmuthi; xv Moon; iii Kal. Ap. ; Epact vii;
Gods, ii ; Indict, xiii ; Coss. Acyndinus, Proclus ; the
same governor Philagrius, Praefect of Egypt. Gregorius
continued his acts of violence, and therefore [Ath.]
wrote no Festal Letter. The Arians proclaimed [Easter]
on xxvii Phamenoth, and were much ridiculed on ac-
count of this error. Then altering it in the middle of
the fast, they kept it with us on iv '^^ Pharmuthi, as above.
He [Athanasius] gave notice of it to the presbyters of
Alexandria in a short note, not being able to send a
Letter as usual, on account of his flight and the
treachery.
XIII. (340-341.) In this year, Easter-day was on
xxiv Pharmuthi ; xvi Moon; xiii. Kal. Mai; Epact xviii;
Sb Read iv, as below. No. xii. 80 j.g. Julius C. ; the Syr. has
Constantinus, by an error. 9 July 11, 335. '^^ Oct. 30, 335.
" Read ' Mechir,' Feb. 5, 336 (Gwatkin, p. 137, the correction
is due to Sievers). '" Read iii. ""• 'xviii^,' heading of
Letter 10.
12 Superseded by Philagrius (see heading, and Prolegg. ch. iu
§6(1) note). "» May 22, 337. '3 Nov. 23. 337.
u July 27, 338, supr. p. 314. '5 The Syriac has erroneously
Constantius I., Constans II. '* Mar. 18, 339. »7 Read iv.
as above, No. vii.
504
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
Gods, iii ; Indict, xiv ; Coss. Marcellinus, Probinus ;
the governor Longinus, of Nicasa, Pra8fect of Egj'pt.
Augustamnica was separated '?". On account of Gregorius
continuing in the city, and exercising violence, although
his illness commenced, the Pope did not write a Festal
Letter even this time •''*.
XIV. (341-2.) In this year, Easter-day was on xvi
Pharmuthi ; xx '^ Moon ; iii Id. Ap. ; Epact xxix ;
Gods, iv ; Indict, xv ; Coss. Constantius III, Con-
stans II ; the governor Longinus of Nicaea, Prsefect
of Egypt. Because Gregorius was in the city, [though]
severely ill, the Pope was unable to send [any Letter].
XV. (342-3. ) In this year, Easter-day was on i Phar-
muthi ; XV Moon ; vi Kal. Ap. ; Epact xi ; Gods, v ;
Indict, i ; Coss. Placidus, Romulus; the same governor
Longinus, of Nicaea, Prsefect of Egypt. In this year
the Synod of Sardica was held^S; and when the
Arians had arrived, they returned to Philippopolis, for
Philagrius gave them this advice there. In truth, they
were blamed everywhere, and were even anathematised
by the Church of Rome, and having written a recanta-
tion to Pope Athanasius, Ursacius and Valens were
put to shame. There was an agreement made at Sardica
respecting Easter, and a decree was issued to be binding
for fifty years, which the Romans and Alexandrians
everywhere announced in the usual manner. Again he
[Athan.] wrote a Festal Letter.
XVI. (343-4.) In this year, Easter-day was on xx
Pharmuthi ; xix Moon ; xvii Kal. Mai ; Epact xxi ;
Gods, vi[i], Coss. Leontius, Sallustius ; the governor
Palladius, of Italy, Praefect of Egypt ; Indict, ii. Being
at Naissus on his return from the Synod, he there cele-
brated Easter*°. Of this Easter-day he gave notice in
few words to the presbyters of Alexandria, but he was
unable to do so to the country,
XVII. (344-5.) In this year, Easter-day was on
xii Pharmuthi ; xviii Moon ; vii. Id. Ap. ; Epact ii ;
Gods, i ; Indict, iii ; Coss. Amantius, Albinus ; the
governor Nestorius of Gaza, Prasfect of Egypt. Having
travelled to Aquileia, he kept Easter there. Of this
Easter-day, he gave notice in few words to the presby-
ters of Alexandria, but not to the country.
XVni. (345-6.) In this year, Easter-day was on iv
Pharmuthi; xxi' Moon; iii Kal. Ap. ; Epact xiv;
Gods, ii ; Indict, iv ; Coss. Constantius* Aug. IV, Con-
stans Aug. Ill ; the same governor Nestorius of Gaza,
Pragfect of Egypt. Gregorius having died on the second
of Epiphi3, he returned from Rome and Italy, and
entered the city and the Church. Moreover he was
thought worthy of a grand reception, for on the xxiv
Paophi-t, the people and all those in authority met him
a hundred miles distant, and he continued in honour.
He had already sent the Festal Letter for this year,
in few words, to the presbyters.
XIX. (346-7.) In this year, Easter-day was on xvii
l:'harmuthi ; xv. Moon; Prid. Id. Apr.; Epact xxv;
Gods, iii ; Indict, v ; Coss. Rufinus, Eusebius ; the
^ame governor Nestorius of Gaza, Prsefect of Egypt.
He wrote this Letter while residing here in Alexandria,
*7» i.e. 'made a separate province." This had been known
(Gothofr. in Cod. Th. xii. i. 34) to fall- between 325 and 342;
and Augustamnica is not mentioned as a province in 338-9, supr.
p. lOI.
^'t ^^^'^ ^""^ ^^ similar notice at the end of xiv are incorrect.
The Index may have been written for a collection which lacked
Letters 13, 14.
18 The Syriac has xvi, which is an error
_ 19 The summons for the Council was issued 'in this year,'
i.e. before August. 343, but the proceedings fall in the autumn and
winter, i.e. in the next Egyptian year, and the sequel (about
Ursac. and Valens) refers to what took place about 347.
20 Easter, i.e. Apr. 15, 344, at Nish, or Nissa, in Servia.
1 The Syriac m this place has xxiv. But we find xxi in the
heading to the Letter itself.
2 The Syriac has Constantinus.
■? Tunc 26 of the previous year (345). 4 Oct. 21, 346.
giving notice of some things which he had not been able
to do before.
XX. (347-8.) In tliis year, Easter-day was on viii
Pharmuthi ; xviii Moon ; iii Non. Ap. ; Epact vi ;
Gods, v*" Indict, vi ; Coss. Philippus, Salia ; the same
governor Nestorius of Gaza, Prasfect of Egypt. This
Letter also he sent while residing in Alexandria.
XXI. (348-9.) In this year, Easter-day was on xxx
Phamenoth ; ... xix Moon, ... vii Kal. Ap. ; Epact xvii ;
Gods, vi ; Indict, vii. But because the Romans re-
fused, for they said they held a tradition from the
Apostle Peter not to pass the twenty-sixth day of Phar-
muthi, nor . . the thirtieth of Phamenoth, xxi Moon
5j vii Kal. Ap. ; Coss. Limenius, Catul-
linus ; the same governor Nestorius of Gaza, Prsefect
of Egypt. He sent this also while residing in Alexan-
dria.
XXII. (349-50.) In this year, Easter-day was on xiii
Pharmuthi ; xix Moon, the second hour; vi Id. Ap. ;
Epact xxviii ; Gods, vii ; Indict, viii ; Coss. Sergius,
Nigrianus ; the same governor Nestorius of Gaza,
Prsefect of Egypt. In this year, Constans was slain by
Magnentius, and Constantius held the empire alone ;
then he wrote to the Pope [Athan.], telling him to
fear nothing because of the death of Constans, but
to confide in him as he had done in Constans while
living.
XXIII. (350-1.) In this year, Easter-day was on v
Pharmuthi ; Moon xviii ; Prid, Kal. Ap. ; tpact ix ;
Gods, i ; Indict, ix ; the Consulship after that of Sergius
and Nigrianus ; the same governor Nestorius of Gaza,
again Praefect of Egypt.
XXIV. (351-2.) In this year, Easter-day was on xxiv
Pharmuthi ; xviii Moon ; xiii Kal. Mai ; Epact xx ;
Gods, iii; Indict, x; Coss. Constantius Aug. V, Con-
stantius Cassar I ; the same governor Nestorius of
Gaza, Pra8fect of Egypt. Gallus was proclaimed Caesar*,
and his name changed into Constantius.
XXV. (352-3.) In this year, Easter- day was on xvi
Pharmuthi; xxi Moon ; iiild.Ap. ; Epact i ; Gods, iv;
Indict, xi ; Coss. Constantius Aug. VI, Constantius
Caesar II ; the governor Sebastianus of Thrace, Praefect
of Egypt. In this year, Serapion'', Bishop of Thmuis,
and Triadelphus of Nicion, and the presbyters Petrus
and Astricius, with others, were sent to the emperor
Constantius, through fear of mischief from the Arians.
They returned, having effected nothing. In this year,
Montanus, Silentiarius of the Palace, [was sent] . . .
against [the]^ Bishop, but, a tumult having been excited,
he retired, having failed to effect anything.
XXVI. (353-4.) In this year, Easter-day was on i^''
Pharmuthi ; xvii Moon ; vi Kal. Ap. ; Epact xii ;
Gods, v; Indict, xii; Coss. Constantius Aug. VII,
Constantius Caesar III. ; the same governor Sebastianus
of Thrace, Prsefect of Egypt.
XXVII. (354-5.) In this year, Easter-day was on xxi
Pharmuthi; xviii Moon; xvi Kal. Mai; Epact xxiii ;
Gods, vi ; Indict, xiii ; Coss. Arbetion, Lollianus ; the
governor Maximus the Elder of Nicaea, Praefect of
Egypt. In this year, Diogenes, the Secretary of the
Emperor, entered with the design of seizing the Bishop.
But he, too, having raged in vain, went away quietly.
XXVIII. (355-6.) In this year, Easter-day was on
xii Pharmuthi ; xvii Moon ; vii Id. Ap. ; Epact iv ;
Gods, i ; Indict, xiv ; Coss. Constantius Aug. VIII,
Julianus Cassar I ; the same governor Maximus the
4» Text ' iv.'
5 The text is imperfect anc apparently very corrupt ; 'xix Moon'
fits Pharm. 28 (Apr. 23), which was the true Easier, and probably
observed at Alexandria, while the Romans, relusing to go beyond
Apr. 21, kept Easter on Pham. 30 (Mar. 26), on which day the
Moon was really xxi days old. See Table D, and Letter i3.
Letter 21 is lost.
6 In the previous year. Mar. 15, 551. 7 Cf. Letters 49, 54.
8 Text corrupt. 8a Text ' iv
INTRODUCTION : FESTAL INDEX.
50s
Elder of Nicsea, Prefect of Egypt, who was succeeded
by Cataphvonius of Byblus. In this year, Syrianus
Dux, having excited a tumult in the Church on the
thiiteenth of Mechir, on the fourteenth' at night en-
tered Theonas with his soldiers ; but he was unable to
capture [Athanasius], for he escaped in a miraculous
manner.
XXIX (356-7.) In this year, Easter-day was on
xxvii Phamenoth ; xvii Moon ; x Kal. Ap. ; Epact xv ;
Gods, ii; Indict, xv; Coss. Constantius Aug. IX,
Julianus Csesar II; the same governor Cataphronius, of
Byblus, Prsefect of Egypt, to whom succeeded Parnassius.
Then Georgius entered on the thirtieth of Mechir, and
acted with excessive violence. But Athanasius, the
Bishop, had fled, and was sought for in the city with
much oppression, many being in danger on this account.
Therefore no Festal Letter was written 5».
XXX. (357-8.) In this year, Easter-day was on xvii
Pharmuthi; Prid. Id. Ap. ; xvii Moon; Epact xxvi ;
Gods, iii; Indict, i; Coss. Talianus, Cerealis; the
governor Parius of Corinth, Prsefect of Egypt. Atha-
nasius, the Bishop, lay concealed in the city of Alexan-
dria. But Georgius left on the fifth of Paophi^'' being
driven away by the multitude. On this account, nei-
ther this year was the Pope able to send a Festal
Letter.
XXXI. (358-9.) In this year, Easter-day was on
ix'*^ Pharmuthi ; Prid. Non. Ap. ; xx Moon ; Epact vii ;
Gods, iv ; Indict, ii ; Coss. Eusebius, Hypatius ; the
same governor Parius, who was succeeded by Itali-
cianus of Italy for three months ; after him Fauslinus,
of Chalcedon. Neither this year did the Pope write
[any Letter].
XXXII. (359-60.) In this year, Easter-day was on
xxviii Pharmuthi ; ix Kal. Mai ; xxi Moon ; Epact
xviii ; Gods, vi ; Indict, iii ; Coss. Constantius Aug. X,
Julianus Caesar III ; the governor Faustinus, of Chalce-
don, Prsefect of Egypt. This Prsefect and Artemius
Dux, having entered a private house and a small cell,
in search of Athanasius the Bishop, bitterly tortured
Eudsemonis, a perpetual virgin. On this account no
[Letter] was written this year.
XXX II I. (360-1.) In this year, Easter-day was on
xiii Pharmuthi ; vi Id. Ap. ; xvii Moon ; Epact xxix ;
Gods, vii ; Indict, iv ; Coss. Taurus, Florentius ; the
same governor Faustinus '°, Praefect of Egypt, who was
succeeded by Gerontius the Armenian. He was unable
to send [a Letter]. In this year, Constantius died'"",
and Julianus holding the empire alone, there was a
cessation of the persecution against the Orthodox. For
commands were issued everywhere from the emperor
Julianus, that the Orthodox ecclesiastics who had been
persecuted in the time of Constantius should be let
alone.
XXXIV. (361-2.) In this year, Easter-day was on
v"'' Pharmuthi; Prid. Kal. Ap. ; xxv Moon; Epact x;
Gods, i ; Indict, v ; Coss. Mamertinus, Nevitta ; the
same governor Gerontius, who was succeeded by Olym-
pus of Tarsus. In this year, in Mechir, Athanasius the
Bishop returned to the Church, after his flight, by
the command of Julianus Augustus, who pardoned all
the Bishops and Clergy in exile, as was before said.
This year, then, he wrote [a Letter],
XXXV. (362-3.) In this year, Easter-day was on
xxv Pharmuthi ; xii Kal. Mai ; xx Moon ; Epact xxi ;
Gods, ii ; Indict, vi; Coss. Julianus Augustus IV,
Sallustius ; the same governor Olympus, Pra;fect of
Egypt. Pythiodorus Trico of Thebes, a Philoso-
pher, brought a decree of Julianus on the twenty-
9 Feb. 8 — 9, 356. »• But see Letter 2g, note r.
Sb Oct. 2, 358. 9= Text 'xix.'
10 Or Pausanias. This name is written vaguely in the Syriac,
varying in all the three places in which it occurs.
ton Nov. 23, .i6i. '°'' Text ' xv.'
seventh of Paophi, and set it in action against the
Bishop first, and uttered many threats. So he [Athan.J
left the city at once, and went up to the Thebais. And
when after eight months Julianus died, and his death
\\as announced, Athanasius returned secretly by night
to Alexandria. Then on the eighth of Thoth, he em-
barked "'•■ at the Eastern Hierapolis, and met the
emperor Jovian, by whom he was dismissed with
honour. He sent this Festal Letter to all the country,
while being driven by persecution from Memphis to
the Thebais, and it was rlelivered as usual.
XXXVJ. (363-4). In this year, Enster-day was on
ix Pharmuthi; Prid. Non. Ap. ; xvi Moon ; Epact iii ;
Gods, iv ; Indict, vii; Coss. Jovianus Aug., Varroni-
anus ; the governor Aerius, of Damascus, Prsefect ; who
was succeeded by Maximus of Rapheotis, and he again
by Flavianus the lUyrian. In this year, the Pope
returned to Alexandria and the Church on the twenty-
fifth of Mechir. He sent the Festal Letter, according
to custom, from Antioch to all the Bishops in all the
province.
XXXVII. (364-5.) In this year, Easter-day was on
i Pharmuthi; v[i] Kal. Ap. ; xix Moon ; Epact xiv ;
Gods, V ; Indict, viii ; Coss. Valentinianus Aug. I,
Valens Aug. ; the same Flavianus, the Illyrian, being
governor. We received the Ctesareum ; but again, the
Pope being persecuted " with accusations, withdrew "
to the garden of the new river. But a few days '3 after,
Barasides, the notary, came to him witli the Praefect,
and obtained an entrance for him into the Church.
Then, an earthquake happening on the twenty-seventh
of Epiphi '3»j the sea returned from the East, and de-
stroyed many persons, and much damage was caused.
XXXVIII. (365-0.) In this year, Easter-day was
on xxi Pharmuthi ; xvi Kal. Mai ; xx Moon ; Epact
xxv ; Gods, vi ; Indict, ix ; in the first year of the
Consulship of Gratianus, the son ol Augustus, and
Daglaiphus ; the same governor Flavianus, Prsefect.
On the twenty-seventh of Epiphi, the heathen made
an attack, and the Cassareum was burnt, and conse-
quently many of the citizens suffered great distress,
while the authors of the calamity were condemned and
exiled. After this, Proclianus the Macedonian, be-
came chief.
XXXIX. (366-7.) In this year, Easter-day was on
vi "* Pharmuthi ; Kal. Ap. ; xvi Moon ; Epact vi ;
Gods, vii; Indict, x; Coss. Lupicinus, Jovinus; the
same Proclianus being governor, who was succeeded
by Tatianus of Lycia. In this year, when Lucius had
attempted an entrance on the twenty-sixth of Thoth 's^
and lay concealed by night in a house on the side
of the enclosure of the Church ; and when Tatianus
the Prsefect and Trajanus Dux brought him out, he
left the city, and was rescued in a wonderful manner,
while the multitude sought to kill him. In this year
he [Ath.] wrote, forming a Canon of the Holy Scrip-
tures.
XL. (367-8.) In this year, Easter-day was on xxv
Pharmuthi ; xii Kal. Mai ; xvi Moon ; Epact xvii ;
Gods, ii ; Indict, xi; Coss. Valentinianus Aug. II,
Valens Aug. II ; the same governor Tatianus, Priefect.
He [Athan.] began to build anew the Ca^sareum, on
the 6th of Pachon, having been honoured with an
imperial command by Trajanus Dux. He also dis-
covered the incendiaries, and immediately cleared away
the rubbish of the burnt ruins, and restored the edifice ^
in the month Pachon.
XLl. (368-9.) In this year, Easter-day was on xvii'* ,
Pharmuthi ; Prid. Id. Ap. ; xv Moon ; Epact xxviii ;
io« Prolegg. ch. v. § 3, h. " May 5, 365. " Oct. 5, 365.
13 Feb. i. 366. ...
i3» July 21, 365 ; so also Chron. Pasch. and Amm. Marc. xxvi.
10, specially mentioning Alexandria. '4 Text ' xvi.' _
'5 Sep. 24, 367 ; cf. Hist. Acepn. ■<> Text xxvii.
5o6
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
Gods, iii ; Indict, xii ; Coss. Valentinianus (son of
Augustus) I, Victor ; the same Tatianus being governor.
The Pope began to build that Church in Mendidium
which bears his name, on the twenty-fifth '' of the
month Thoth, at the beginning of the eighty-fifth year
of the Diocletian Era.
XLII. (369-70.) In this year, Easter-day was on
ii Pharmuthi ; v '^ Kal. Ap. ; xv Moon ; Epact ix ;
Gods, iv ; Indict, xiii ; Coss. Valentinianus Aug. Ill,
Valens Aug. Ill ; the same Tatianus being governor,
who was succeeded by Olympius Palladius, of Samo-
sata. The Pope finished the Church, called after his
name, at the close of the eighty-sixth year of the
Diocletian Era ; in which also he celebrated the dedi-
cation, on the fourteenth '' of Mesori.
XLIII. (370-1.) In this year, Easter-day was on
xxii Pharmuthi ; xv Kal. Mai ; xvi Moon ; Epact xx ;
»8 Text 'iv.'
17 Sept. 22, 368.
'9 Aug. 7, 37a
Gods, v; Indict, xiv; Coss. Gratianus Aug. II, Probus ;
the same Palladius being governor ; who was succeeded
as Prasfect of Egypt by ^lius Palladius, of Palestine,
who was called Cyrus.
XLIV. (371-2.) In this year, Easter-day was on
xiii Pharmuthi ; vi Id. Ap. ; xix Moon : Epact i ;
Gods, vii '°. Indict, xv ; Coss. Modestus, Arintheus ;
the same .(Elius Palladius the governor, called Cyrus,
Prsefect of Egypt.
XLV. (372-3.) In this year, Easter-day was on
V Pharmuthi ; Prid. Kal. Ap. ; xxi Moon ; Epact xii ;.
Gods, i ; Indict, i ; Coss. Valentinianus IV, Valens IV;
the same governor .^lius Palladius, Prefect of Egypt.
At the close of this year, on the seventh of Pachon ^'»
he [Athan.] departed this life in a wonderful m.anner.
The end of the heads of the Festal Letters of holy
Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.
•» The Syr. has ' and not one,' which must be incorrect.
21 [May 2, 373,]
I. FESTAL LETTERS.
LETTER I.
For 329.
Easter-day xi Pharmuthi ; viii Id. April ; ^r.
Dioclet. 45 ; Coss. Constantinus Au^. VIII.
Constantinus Ccbs. IV ; Frcefect. Septimitts
Zenius ; Indict. II
OF FASTING, AND TRUMPETS, AND FEASTS.
Come, my beloved, the season calls us to
keep the feast. Again, ' the Sun of Right-
eousness % causing His divine beams to rise
upon us, proclaims beforehand the time of the
feast, in which, obeying Him, we ought to
celebrate it, lest when the time has passed by,
gladness likewise may pass us by. For dis-
cerning the time is one of the duties most
urgent on us, for the practice of virtue ; so that
the blessed Paul, when instructing his disciple,
teaches him to observe the time, saying, ' Stand
(ready) in season, and out of season ^ ' — that
knowing both the one and the other, he might
do things befitting the season, and avoid the
blame of unseasonableness. For thus the God
of all, after the manner of wise Solomon 3, dis-
tributes everything in time and season, to the
end that, in due time, the salvation of men.
should be everywhere spread abroad. Thus
the ' Wisdom of God ■*,' our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, not out of season, but in season,
' passed upon holy souls, fashioning the friends
I Mai. iv. 2.
» 2 Tim. iv. 2. The due celebration of the feast is spoken of
as producing a permanent beneficial effect on the Christian. Cf.
3 Eccl. iii. 7. Cf. S. Cyril. Homil. Pasck. V.
of God and the prophetsS;' so that although
very many were praying for Him, and saying,
' O that the salvation of God were come out of
Sion^!' — the Spouse also, as it is written in the
Song of Songs, was praying and saying, * O that
Thou wert my sister's son, that sucked the
breasts of my mother 7!' that Thou wert like
the children of men, and wouldest take
upon Thee human passions for our .sake !
— nevertheless, the God of all, the Maker
of times and seasons, Who knows our affairs
better than we do, while, as a good physi-
cian, He exhorts to obedience in season
— the only one in which we may be healed
. — so also does He send Him not unseason-
ably, but seasonably, saying, ' In an accept-
able time have I heard Thee, an I in
the day of salvation I have helped Thee*.'
2. And, on this account, the blessed Paul,
urging us to note this season, wrote, saying, 'Be-
hold, now is the accepted time ; behold, now is
the day of salvation 9.' At set seasons also He
called the children of Israel to the Levitical
feasts by Moses, saying, ' Three times in a year
ye shall keep a feast to Me '° ' (one of which,
my beloved, is that now at hand), the trumpets
of the priests sounding and urging its OJserv-
ance ; as the holy Psalmist comma ided,
saying, ' Blow with the trumpet in the new
moon, on the [solemn] day of your feast ".'
Since this sentence enjoins upon us to blow
both on the new moons, and on the solemn '^
S Wisd. viL 37. * Ps. xiv. 7. 7 Cant. viii. i.
8 Isa. xlix. 8. 9 2 Cor. vi. 2. 'o Exod. xxiii. 14.
•* 1 Cor. i. 24. I " Ps. Ixxxi. 3, cf. Num. x. 8. '= Or ap^fiitited, and so passim.
LETTER I. EASTER, 329.
507
days, He hath made a solemn day of that in
which the Hght of the moon is perfected in the
full ; which was then a type, as is this of the
trumpets. At one time, as has been said, they
called to the feasts : at another time to fastin?
and to war. And this was not done without
solemnity, nor by chance, but this sound of
the trumpets was appointed, so that every man
should come to that which was proclaimed.
And this ought to be learned not merely from
me, but from the divine Scriptures, when God
was revealed to Moses, and said, as it is written
in the book of Numbers ; ' And the Lord spake
unto Moses, saying, Make to thee two trumpets;
of silver shalt thou make them, and they shall
be for thee to call the congregation '3 ; ' — very
properly for those who here love Him. So
that we may know that these things had refer-
ence to the time of Moses — yea, were to be
observed so long as the shadow lasted, the
whole being appointed for use, ' till the time of
reformation ^' ' For ' (said He) ' if ye shall go
out to battle in your land against your enemies
that rise up against you^' (for such things as
these refer to the land, and no further), ' then
ye shall proclaim with the trumpets, and shall
be remembered before the Lord, and be
delivered from your enemies.' Not only in
wars did they blow the trumpet, but under the
law, there was a festal trumpet also. Hear him
again, going on to say, ' And in the day of your
gladness, and in your feasts, and your new
moons, ye shall blow with the trumpetss,' And
let no man think it a light and contemptible
matter, if he hear the law command respecting
trumpets ; it is a wonderful and fearful thing.
For beyond any other voice or instrument, the
trumpet is awakening and terrible ; so Israel
received instruction by these means, because
he was then but a child. But in order that
the proclamation should not be thought merely
human, being superhuman, its sounds resem-
bled those which were uttered when they
trembled before the mount *; and they were
reminded of the law that was then given
them, and kept it.
3. For the law was admirable, and the
shadow was excellent, otherwise, it would not
have wrought fear, and induced reverence in
those who heard; especially in those who
at that time not only heard but saw these
things. Now these things were typical, and
done as in a shadow. But let us pass on to
the meaning, antl henceforth leaving the figure
at a distance, come to the truth, and look
upon the priestly trumpets of our Saviour,
which cry out, and call us, at one time to war,
13 Num. X. 1, 2.
2 Numb. X. 9. 3 lb.
I Heb. ix. lo.
4 Exod. xix. 16.
as the blessed Paul saith ; ' We wrestle not
with flesh and blood, but with principalities,
with powers, with the rulers of this dark world,
with wicked spirits in heaven s.' At another
time the call is made to virginity, and self-
denial, and conjugal harmony, saying, To
virgins, the things of virgins ; and to those
who love the way of abstinence, the things of
abstinence; and to those who are married^,
the things of an honourable marriage ; thus
assigning to each its own virtues and an hon-
ourable recompense. Sometimes the call is
made to fasting, and sometimes to a feast.
Hear again the same [Apostle] blowing the
trumpet, and proclaiming, ' Christ our Pass-
over is sacrificed; therefore let us keep the
feast, not with old leaven, neither with the
leaven of malice and wickedness 7.' If thou
wouldest listen to a trumpet much greater
than all these, hear our Saviour saying ; ' In
that last and great day of the feast, Jesus stood
and cried, saying. If any man thirst, let him
come unto Me and drink ^.' For it became
the Saviour not simply to call us to a feast,
but to ' the great feast ;' if only we will be pre-
pared to hear, and to conform to the pro-
clamation of every trumpet.
4. For since, as I before said, there are
divers proclamations, listen, as in a figure, to
the prophet blowing the trumpet ; and further,
having turned to the truth, be ready for the
announcement of the trumpet, for he saith,
' Blow ye the trumpet in Sion : sanctify a
fast 9.' This is a warning trumpet, and com-
mands with great earnestness, that when we
fast, we should hallow the fast. For not all
those who call upon God, hallow God, since
there are some who defile Him ; yet not Him —
that is impossible — but their own mind con-
cerning Him ; for He is holy, and has pleasure
in the saints '° And therefore the blebsed
Paul accuses those who dishonour God ;
'Transgressors of the law dishonour God'^'
So then, to make a separation from those who
pollute the fast, he saith here, ' sanctify a fast.'
For many, crowding to the fast, pollute them-
selves in the thoughts of their hearts, some-
times by doing evil against their brethren,
sometimes by daring to defraud. And, to
mention nothing else, there are many who
exalt themselves above their neighbours,
thereby causing great mischief. For the boast
of fasting did no good to the Pharisee, al-
though he fasted twice in the week '^ only
because he exalted himself against the pub-
lican. In the same manner the Word blamed
5 Eph. vi. la.
8 John vii. 37.
" Rom. ii. 23.
6 Cf. I Cor. vii. 2, s.
9 Joel ii. 15.
" Luke xviii. 12.
7 lb. V. 7,8.
»o Ps. xvi. 3i
SoS
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
tlie children of Israel on account of such a
fast as this, exhorting them by Isaiah the
Prophet, and saying, ' This is not the fast and
the day that I have chosen, that a man should
humble his soul ; not even if thou shouldest
bow down thy neck like a hook, and shouldest
strew sackcloth and ashes under thee ; neither
thus shall ye call the fast acceptable ^3.' That
we may be able to shew what kind of persons
we should be when we fast, and of what
character the fast should be, listen again to
God commanding Moses, and saying, as it is
written in Leviticus **, 'And the Lord spake
unto Moses, saying, In the tenth day of this
seventh month, there shall be a day of atone-
ment ; a convocation, and a holy day shall it
be to you ; and ye shall humble your souls,
and offer whole burnt-offerings unto the Lord.'
And afterwards, that the law might be defined
on this point, He proceeds to say ; ' Every
soul that shall not humble itself, shall be cut
off from the people 's.'
5. Behold, my brethren, how much a fast can
do, and in what manner the law commands us
to fast. It is required that not only with the
body should we fast, but with the soul. Now
the soul is humbled when it does not follow
wicked opinions, but feeds on becoming virtues.
For virtues and vices are the food of the soul,
and it can eat either of these two meats, and
incline to either of the two, according to its
own will. If it is bent toward virtue, it will
be nourished by virtues, by righteousness, by
temperance, by meekness, by fortitude, as
Paul saith ; ' Being nourished by the word of
truth '^.' Such was the case with our Lord,
who said, ' My meat is to do the will of My
Father which is in heaven '7.' But if it is not
thus with the soul, and it inclines downwards,
it is then nourished by nothing but sin. For
thus the Holy Ghost, describing sinners and
their food, referred to the devil when He said,
' I have given him to be meat to the people of
Ethiopia '^.' For this is the food of sinners.
And as our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,
being heavenly bread, is the food of the saints,
according to this ; ' Except ye eat My flesh,
and drink My blood ^;' so is the devil the
food of the impure, and of those who do
nothing which is of the light, but work the
deeds of darkness. Therefore, in order to
withdraw and turn them from vices. He com-
mands them to be nourished with the food of
virtue ; namely, humbleness of mind, lowli-
ness to endure humiliations, the acknowledg-
ment of God. For not only does such a fast
as this obtain pardon for souls, but being kept
«3 Is. Iviii. s- »4 Levit. xxiii. 26, s^.
'S lb. xxiii. 29. 16 I Tim. iv. 6. '7 John iv. 34.
'8 Ps. Ixxiv. 14, LXX. X John vi. 53.
holy, it prepares tlie saints, and raises them
above the earth.
6. And indeed that which I am about to
say is wonderful, yea it is of those things
which are very miraculous ; yet not far from
the truth, as ye may be able to learn from the
sacred ^ writings. That great man Moses,
when fasting, conversed with God, and re-
ceived the law. The great and holy Elijah,
when fasting, was thought worthy of divine
visions, and at last was taken up like Him
who ascended into heaven. And Daniel,
when fasting, although a very young man,
was entrusted with the mystery, and he alone
understood the secret things of the king, and
was thought worthy of divine visions. But
because the length of the fast of these men
was wonderful, and the days prolonged, let
no man lightly fall into unbelief; but rather
let him believe and know, that the contem-
plation of God, and the word which is
from Him, suffice to nourish those who hear,
and stand to them in place of all food. For
the angels are no otherwise sustained than by
beholding at all times the face of the Father,
and of the Saviour who is in heaven. And
thus Moses, as long as he talked with God,
fasted indeed bodily, but was nourished by
divine words. When he descended among
men, and God was gone up from him, he
suffered hunger like other men. For it is not
said that he fasted longer than forty days —
those in which he was conversing with God.
And, generally, each one of the saints has
been thought worthy of similar transcendent
nourishment.
7. Wherefore, my beloved, having our souls
nourished with divine food, with the Word,
and according to the will of God, and fasting
bodily in things external, let us keep this
great and saving feast as becomes us. Even
the ignorant Jews received this divine food,
through the type, when they ate a lamb in
the passover. But not understanding the type,
even to this day they eat the lamb, erring in
that they are without the city and the truth.
As long as Judaea and the city existed, there
were a type, and a lamb, and a shadow, since
the law thus commandeds; These things shall
not be done in another city ; but in the land
of Judsea, and in no place without [the land
of Judaea]. And besides this, the law com-
manded them to offer whole burnt-offerings
and sacrifices, there being no other altar than
that in Jerusalem. For on this account, in
that city alone was there an altar and temple
built, and in no other city were tliey permitted
2 The word in the Syriac is 'priestly.' But in this and in otl ei
places, it appears to be for the Greek 'lepos. Cf. to. itpd ypan'
txara. 2 Tim. iii. 15. 3 Deut. xii. 11, 13, 14.
LETTER I. EASTER, 329.
509
to perform these rites, so that when that
city should come to an end, then those
things that were figurative might also be
done away.
8. Now observe; that city, since the coming
of our Saviour, has had an end, and all the
land of the Jews has been laid waste ; so that
from the testimony of these things (and we need
no further proof, being assured by our own eyes
of the fact) there must, of necessity, be an end
of the shadow. And not from me should these
things be learned, but the sacred voice of the
prophet foretold, crying ; ' Behold upon the
mountains the feet of Him that bringeth good
tidings, and publisheth peace-*;' and what is
the message he published, but that which he
goes on to say to them, ' Keep thy feasts, O
Judah ; pay to the Lord thy vows. For they
shall no more go to that which is old ; it is
finished ; it is taken away : He is gone up
who breathed upon the face, and delivered
thee from affliction 5.' Now who is he that
went up ? a man may say to the Jews, in order
that even the boast of the shadow may be done
away ; neither is it an idle thing to listen to
the expression, ' It is finished ; he is gone
up who breathed.' For nothing was finished
before he went up who breathed. But as
soon as he went up, it was finished. Who was
he then, O Jews, as I said before ? If Moses,
the assertion would be false ; for the people
were not yet come to the land in which alone
they were commanded to perform these rites.
But if Samuel, or any other of the prophets,
even in that case there would be a perversion
of the truth ; for hitherto these things were
done in Judaaa, and the city was standing.
For it was necessary that while that stood,
these things should be performed. So that
it was none of these, my beloved, who went
up. But if thou wouldest hear the true matter,
and be kept from Jewish fables, behold our
Saviour who went up, and ' breathed upon the
face, and said to His disciples. Receive ye the
Holy Ghost ^.' For as soon as these things
were done, everything was finished, for the
altar was broken, and the veil of the temple
was rent ; and although the city was not yet
laid waste, the abomination was ready to sit
in the midst of the temple, and the city and
those ancient ordinances to receive their final
consummation.
9. Since then we have passed beyond that
time of shadows, and no longer perform rites
under it, but have turned, as it were, unto the
Lord ; ' for the Lord is the Spirit, and where
the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty ^ \ ' — as
4 Nah. i. 15.
* John XX. 22.
S Nah. i. 15 ; ii. i, LXX.
7 2 Cor. iii. 17.
we hear the sacred trumjjet, no longer slay-
ing a material lamb, but that true Lamb that
was slain, even our Lord Jesus Christ ; ' Who
was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and was
dumb as a lamb before her shearers ^ ; ' being
purified by His precious blood, which speaketh
better things than that of Abel, having our
feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel,
holding in our hands the rod and staff of the
Lord, by which that saint was comforted, who
said 9, 'Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort
me ; ' and to sum up, being in all respects
prepared, and careful for nothing, because, as
the blessed Paul saith, 'The Lord is at hand'°;'
and as our Saviour saith, ' In an hour when
we think not, the Lord cometh ; — Let us keep
the Feast, not with old leaven, neither with
the leaven of mahce and wickedness ; but with
the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
Putting off the old man and his deeds, let us
put on the new man ", which is created in
God,' in humbleness of mind, and a pure con-
science ; in meditation of the law by night and
by day. And casting away all hypocrisy and
fraud, putting far from us all pride and deceit,
let us take upon us love towards God and
towards our neighbour, that being new [crea-
tures], and receiving the new wine, even the
Holy Spirit, we may properly keep the feast,
even the month of these new [fruits] '^
10. We '3 begin the holy fast on the fifth
day of Pharmuthi (March 31), and adding to
it according to the number of those six holy
and great days, which are the symbol of the
creation of this world, let us rest and cease
(from fasting) on the tenth day of the same
Pharmuthi (April 5), on the holy sabbath of
the week. And when the first day of the holy
week dawns and rises upon us, on the eleventh
day of the same month (April 6), from which
again we count all the seven weeks one by
one, let us keep feast on the holy day of Pen-
tecost— on that which was at one time to the
Jews, typically, the feast of weeks, in which
they granted forgiveness and settlement of
debts; and indeed that day was one of de-
liverance in every respect. Let us keep the
feast on the first day of the great week, as a
symbol of the world to come, in which we
here receive a pledge that we shall have ever-
lasting life hereafter. Then having passed
8 Is. liii. 7. 9 Ps. xxiii. 4. 'o Phil. iv. 5.
" Luke xii. 40 ; i Cor. v. 8 ; Ephes. iv. 22 — 24.
" AlUiding to Deut. xvi. i, LXX.
13 We should not hive much difficulty in fixing upon many of
the phrases and expressions used by S. Athan. towards the close
of his Epistles, by referring to the concluding sentences in the
Paschal lletters of S. Cyril, who seems herein to have closely imi-
tated his illustrious predecessor in the Patriarchate. The Syriac
translator must frequently have had before him the following ex-
pressions : apyoiJievoi Tigs oyi'as Teo-o-apaKOffn^s — en-io-ucaTTTOi'Tes—
(rvvdiTTOVTes efrjs — irepiAuofTes to? i^crreios — KaTairaiiovTes Tas
i rrjo-Tccaj — ean-epoi jSaSei'o <ra(3/3oTOu — tji e7rt</)a)crKoucrr) Kvpiaxfj.
5IO
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
hence, we shall keep a perfect feast with
Christ, while we cry out and say, like the
saints, ' I will pass to the place of the won-
drous tabernacle, to the house of God ; with
the voice of gladness and thanksgiving, the
shouting of those who rejoice ^^ ; ' whence pain
and sorrow and sighing have fled, and upon
our heads gladness and joy shall have come
to us ! May we be judged worthy to be par-
takers in these things.
II. Let us remember the poor, and not
forget kindness to strangers ; above all, let us
love God with all our soul, and might, and
strength, and our neighbour as ourselves. So
may we receive those things which the eye
hath not seen, nor the ear heard, and which
have not entered into the heart of man, which
God hath prepared for those that love Him ^5,
through His only Son, our Lord and Saviour,
Jesus Christ ; through Whom, to the Father
alone, by the Holy Ghost, be glory and do-
minion for ever and even Amen.
Salute one another with a kiss. All the bre-
thren who are with me salute you.
Here endeth the first Festal Letter of holy
Athanasius.
LETTER II.
For 330.
Easter-day xxiv Pharmuthi ; xiii Kal. Mai ;
^ra Dioclet. 46 ; Coss. Gallicianus, Valerius
Syinmachus ; Frcefect, Magninianus ; Indict.
Hi.
Again, my brethren, is Easter come and
gladness ; again the Lord hath brought us to
this season ; so that when, according to cus-
tom, we have been nourished with His words,
we may duly keep the feast. Let us celebrate
it then, even heavenly joy, with those saints
who formerly proclaimed a like feast, and were
ensamples to us of conversation in Christ.
For not only were they entrusted with the
charge of preaching the Gospel, but, if we
enquire, we shall see, as it is written, that
its power was displayed in them. 'Be ye
therefore followers of me ',' he wrote to the
Corinthians. Now the apostolic precept ex-
horts us all, for those commands which he
sent to individuals, he at the same time
enjoined upon every man in every place, for
he was ' a teacher of all nations in faith and
truths' And, generally, the commands of all
the saints urge us on similarly, as Solomon
makes use of proverbs, saying, ' Hear, my chil-
dren, the instruction of a father, and attend to
know understanding ; for I give you a good
•4 Ps. xlii. 4.
' I Cor. iv. 16.
»S I Cor. ii. 9 ; Is. Ixiv. 4.
« I Tim. ii. 7. Of. Letter iii.
gift, forsake ye not my word : for I was an
obedient son to my father, and beloved in the
sight of my mothers.' For a just father brings
up [his children] well, when he is diligent in
teaching others in accordance with his own
upright conduct, so that when he meets with
opposition, he may not be ashamed on hearing
it said, ' Thou therefore that teachest others,
teachest thou not thyself*?' but rather, like
the good servant, may both save himself and
gain others ; and thus, when the grace com-
mitted to him has been doubled, he may
hear, ' Thou good and faithful servant, thou
hast been faithful in a little, I will set thee
over much : enter into the joy of thy Lords.'
2. Let us ^ then, as is becoming, as at all times,
yet especially in the days of the feast, be not
hearers only, but doers of the commandments
of our Saviour ; that having imitated the
behaviour of the saints, we may enter together
into the joy of our Lord which is in heaven,
swhich is not transitory, but truly abides ; of
which evil doers having deprived themselves,
there remains to them as the fruit of their
ways, sorrow and affliction, and groaning with
torments. Let a man see what these become
like, that they bear not the likeness 7 of the con-
versation of the saints, nor of that right under-
standing, by which man at the beginning was
rational, and in the image of God. But they are
compared to their disgrace to beasts without
understanding, and becoming like them in
unlawful pleasures, they are spoken of as
wanton horses?''; also, for their craftiness, and
errors, and sin laden with death, they are called
a ' generation of vipers,' as John saith^. Now
having thus fallen, and grovelling in the dust
hke the serpen t9, having their minds set on
nothing beyond visible things, they esteem
these things good, and rejoicing in them,
serve their own lusts and not God.
3. Yet even in this state, the man-loving
Word, who came for this very reason, that He
might seek and find that which was lost, sought
to restrain them from such folly, crying and
saying, ' Be ye not as the horse and the
mule which have no understanding, whose
cheeks ye hold in with bit and bridle'".' Be-
cause they were careless and imitated the wicked,
the prophet prays in spirit and says, 'Ye are to
me like merchant-men of Phoenicia".' And
the avenging Spirit protests against them in
these words, ' Lord, in Thy city Thou wilt
despise their image".' Thus, being changed
3 Prov. iv. I. 4 Rom. ii. 21. 5 Mat. xxv. 21.
6 We have here the first fragment extant of the original Greek
text. It is to be found in Cosmas Indicopleustes, p. 316.
7 Syr. eiKwy. _ T- Jer. v. 8. 8 i.e. the Baptist,
Matt. iii. 7 ; Luke iii. 7. 9 Cf. Vit. Anton, supr. p. 202.
10 Ps. xxxii. 9. Cf. Orat. iii. 18. " Is. xxiii. 2, LXX.
"^ Ps. Ixxiii. 20.
LETTER II. EASIER,
330.
511
into the likeness of fools, they fell so low in
their understanding, that by their excessive
reasoning, they even likened the Divine Wis-
dom to themselves, thinking it to be like their
own arts. Therefore, * professing themselves
to be wise, they became fools, and changed
the glory of the incorruptible God into the
likeness of the corruptible image of man, and
birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping
things. Wherefore God gave them over to
a reprobate mind, to do those things which
are not convenient ^3/ For they did not listen
to the prophetic voice that reproved them
(saying), ' To what have ye likened the Lord,
and with what have ye compared Him ^4 ? ' nei-
ther to David, who prayed concerning such as
these, and sang, 'All those that make them
are like unto them, and all those who put their
trust in them 's.' Being blind to the truth,
they looked upon a stone as God, and hence,
like senseless creatures, they walked in dark-
ness, and, as the prophet cried, 'They hear
indeed, but they do not understand ; they see
indeed, but they do not perceive ; for their
heart is waxen fat, and with their ears they
hear heavily'^.'
4. Now those who do not observe the feast,
continue such as these even to the present day,
feigning indeed and devising names of feasts '7,
but rattier introducing days of mourning than
of gladness ; ' For there is no peace to the
wicked, saith the Lord '.' And as Wisdom
saith, ' Gladness and joy are taken from their
mouth ^' Such are the feasts of the wicked.
But the wise servants of the Lord, who have
truly put on the man which is created in God 3,
have received gospel words, and reckon as a
general commandment that given to Timothy,
which saith, ' Be thou an example to the
believers in word, in conversation, in love, in
faith, in purity +.' So well do they keep the
Feast, that even the unbelievers, seeing their
order s^ may say, ' God is with them of a truth ^.'
For as he who receives an apostle receives Him
who sent him^% so he who is a follower of the
saints, makes the Lord in every respect his end
and aim, even as Paul, being a follower of Him,
goes on to say, ' As I also of Christ 7.' For
there were first our Saviour's own words, who
from the height of His divinity, when convers-
ing with His disciples, said, * Learn of Me, for
I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall
find rest to your souls ^' Then too when He
13 Rom. i. 22, 28, and cf. c. Gent. 19. 2. «4 Is. xl. i8.
•5 Ps. cxv. 8. '^ Is.vi. p.
»7 Syr. crxi/J-ario-a^ei'OS. The allusion in this sentence is evi-
dently to the conduct of Jeroboam, as recorded i Kings xii. 32, 33.
The phraseology of the Syriac resembles that of the Syr. version
in V. 33. I Is. xlviii. 22. = Vid. Letter m. note.
3 Eph. iv. 24. 4 I Tim. iv. 12. s rafit, Syr. Cf. Col.
ji. 5, SAe'TTUV vt>.ti>v TTji' Tttfii'. * I Cor. xiv. 25.
61. Matt. X. 40. 7 I Cor. xi. i. » Matt. xi. 29.
poured water into a basin, and girded Himself
with a towel, and washed His disciples' feet, He
said to them, * Know what I have done. Ye
call Me Master and Lord, and ye say well, for
so I am. If therefore T, your Lord and Master,
have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash
one another's feet : for I have given you an
example, that as I have done to you, ye also
should do 9.'
5. Oh ! my brethren, how shall we admire the
loving-kindness of the Saviour? With what
power, and with what a trumpet should a
man cry out, exalting these His benefits !
That not only should we bear His image, but
should receive from Him an example and
pattern of heavenly conversation ; that as He
hath begun, we should go on, that suffering, we
should not threaten, being reviled, we should
not revile again, but should bless them that
curse, and in everything commit ourselves to
God who judgedi righteously '°. For those who
are thus disposed, and fashion themselves
according to the Gospel, will be partakers of
Christ, and imitators of apostolic conversation,
on account of which they shall be deemed
worthy of that praise from him, with which he
praised the Corinthians, when he said, ' I praise
you that in everything ye are mindful of me ".'
Afterwards, because there were men who used
his words, but chose to hear them as suited
their lusts, and dared to pervert them, as the
followers of Hymengeus and Alexander, and
before them the Sadducees, who as he said,
'having made shipwreck of faith,' scoffed
at the mystery of the resurrection, he im-
mediately proceeded to say, ' And as I have
delivered to you traditions, hold them fast '^'
That means, indeed, that we should think not
otherwise than as the teacher has delivered.
6. For not only in outward form did those
wicked men dissemble, putting on as the I^ord
says sheep's clothing, and appearing like unto
whited sepulchres ; but they took those divine
words in their mouth, while they inwardly
cherished evil intentions. And the first to put
on this appearance was the serpent, the inventor
of wickedness from the beginning — the devil, —
who, in disguise, conversed with Eve, and forth-
with deceived her. But after him and with him
are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who
indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold
such opinions as the saints have handed down,
and receiving them as the traditions of men,
err, because they do not rightly know them nor
their '3 power. Therefore Paul justly praises
the Corinthians ", because their opinions were
in accordance with his traditions. And the
9 John xiii. 12. f" i Pet. ii. 2i;-23.
" I Tim. i. 19 ; 2 Tim. ii. 18 ; i Cor. xi. 2.
" I Cor. xi 2.
13 Matt. xxii. 1^%
512
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
Lord most righteously reproved the Jews, say-
ing, * Wherefore do ye also transgress the com-
mandments of God on account of your tradi-
tions ^1.' For they changed the commandments
they received from God after their own under-
standing, preferring to observe the traditions of
men. And about these, a little after, the
blessed Paul again gave directions to the
Galatians who were in danger thereof, writing
to them, ' If any man preach to you aught
else than that ye have received, let him be
accursed ^s.'
7. For there is no fellowship whatever be-
tween the words of the saints and the fancies
of human invention ; for the saints are the
ministers of the truth, preaching the kingdom
of heaven, but those who are borne in the
opposite direction have nothing better than to
eat, and think their end is that they shall cease
to be, and they say, ' Let us eat and drink, for
to-morrow we die '^.' Therefore blessed Luke
reproves the inventions of men, and hands
down the narrations of the saints, saying in the
beginning of the Gospel, 'Since many have
presumed to write narrations of those events of
which we are assured, as those who from the
beginning were witnesses and ministers of the
Word have delivered to us ; it hath seemed
good to me also, who have adhered to them all
from the first, to write correctly in order to
thee, O excellent Theophilus, that thou mayest
know the truth concerning the things in which
thou hast been instructed '7.' For as each of
the saints has received, that they impart with-
out alteration, for the confirmation of the
doctrine of the mysteries. Of these the (divine)
word would have us disciples, and these should
of right be our teachers, and to them only is it
necessary to give heed, for of them only is ' the
word faithful and worthy of all acceptation '^ ; '
these not being disciples because they heard
from others, but being eye-witnesses and
ministers of the Word, that which they had
heard from Him have they handed down.
Now some have related the wonderful signs
performed by our Saviour, and preached His
eternal Godhead. And others have written of
His being born in the flesh of the Virgin,
and have proclaimed the festival of the holy
passover, saying, 'Christ our Passover is
sacrificed '9;' so that we, individually and collect-
ively, and all the churches in the world may
remember, as it is written, 'That Christ rose
from the dead, of the seed of David, according
to the Gospel =°,' And let us not forget that
which Paul delivered, declaring it to the Corin-
thians ; I mean His resurrection, whereby ' He
'6 Is. xxii. 13.
«9 I Cor. V. 7.
14 Matt. XV. 3.
15 Gal. i. 9
17 Luke i. I.
18 I Tim. i. 15.
'- ^ Tim. ii. &
destroyed him that had the power of death, that
is, the devil ' ; ' and raised us up together with
Him, having loosed the bands of death, and
vouchsafed a blessing instead of a curse, joy
instead of grief, a feast instead of mourning, in
this holy joy of Easter, which being continually
in our hearts, we always rejoice, as Paul com-
manded ; ' We pray without ceasing ; in every-
thing we give thanks '.'' So we are not remiss
in giving notice of its seasons, as we have
received from the Fathers. Again we write,
again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we
remind each other when we come together for
prayer ; and keeping the feast in common, with
one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord.
Thus giving thanks unto Him, and being follow-
ers of the saints, ' we shall make our praise in
the Lord all the day 3,' as the Psalmist says.
So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be
counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven.
8. We begin the fast of forty days on the
T3th of the month Phamenoth (Mar. 9). After
we have given ourselves to fasting in continued
succession, let us begin the holy Paschal s week
on the i8th of the month Pharmuthi (April 13).
Then resting on the 23rd of the same month
Pharmuthi (April 18), and keeping the feast
afterwards on the first of the week, on the 24th
(April 19), let us add to these the seven weeks
of the great Pentecost, wholly rejoicing and
exulting in Christ Jesus our Lord, through
Whom to the Father be glory and dominion in
the Holy Ghost, for ever and ever. Amen.
The brethren which are with me salute you.
Salute one another with a holy kiss ^.
Here encieth the second Festal Letter of the
holy lord Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.
LETTER HL
For 331.
Easter-day xvi Pharmuthi ; Hi Id. April ; JEra
Dioclet. 47 ; Coss. Amiius Bassus, Ablabius;
Frafect, Florentius ; Indict, iv.
Again, my beloved brethren, the day of
the feast draws near to us, which, above all
others, should be devoted to prayer, which
the law commands to be observed, and which
it would be an unholy thing for us to pass
over in silence. For although we have been
held under restraint by those who afflict us,
that, because of them, we should not announce
to you this season; yet thanks be to 'God,
who comforteth the afflicted^,' that we have
I
' Heb. ii. 14. ^ i Thess. v. 17. 3 Ps. xxxv. 28.
5 In Syriac there is but one word 'pescha' to express the Pass-
over and Easter feasts, it is therefore sometimes rendered Easter,
and sometimes Passover, in the following pages.
6 The twenty-fifth Paschal Letter of S. Cyril ends with the
same words. This is the usual form in which our author concludes
his Paschal Letters. S. Cyril employs it but once, as above.
' 2 Cor. viL 6 The historical reference is not quite certain.
LETTER III. EASTER, 331.
513
not been overcome by the wickedness of our
accusers and silenced ; but obeying the voice
of truth, we together with you cry aloud in the
day of the feast. For the God of all hath
commanded, saying, ' Speak % and the children
of Israel shall keep the Passover.' And the
Spirit exhorts in the Psalm ; ' Blow the trumpet
in the new moons 3, in the solemn day of your
feast' And the prophet cries ; ' Keep thy
feasts, O Judah4.' I do not send word to you
as though you were ignorant ; but I publish it
to those who know it, that ye may perceive
that although men have separated us, yet God
having made us companions, we approach the
same feast, and worship the same Lord con-
tinually. And we do not keep the festival as
observers of days, knowing that the Apostle
reproves those who do so, in those words
which he spake; 'Ye observe days, and months,
and times, and years s.' But rather do we
consider the day solemn because of the feast;
so that all of us, who serve God in every
place, may together in our prayers be well-
pleasing to God. For the blessed Paul, an-
nouncing the nearness of gladness like this,
did not announce days, but the Lord, for
whose sake we keep the feast, saying, ' Christ,
our Passover, is sacrificed^;' so that we all,
contemplating the eternity of the Word, may
draw near to do Him service.
2. For what else is the feast, but the service
of the soul? And what is that service, but
prolonged prayer to God, and unceasing
thanksgiving?? The unthankful departing far
from these are rightly deprived of the joy
springing therefrom : for ' joy and gladness
are taken from their mouth ^.' Therefore, the
[divine] word doth not allow them to have
peace ; ' For there is no peace to the wicked,
saith the Lord 9,' they labour in pain and
grief. So, not even to him who owed ten
thousand talents did the Gospel grant forgive-
ness in the sight of the Lord ''°. For even he,
having received forgiveness of great things,
was forgetful of kindness in little ones, so that
he paid the penalty also of those former
things. And justly indeed, for having himself
experienced kindness, he was required to be
merciful to his fellow servant. He too that
received the one talent, and bound it up in a
napkin, and hid it in the earth, was in conse-
but the Index iii. is clearly right in its statement that Ath. was
absent at this time, as well as in 332.
» ' '2X-K0V, KoX,' as LXX. not Pcshito.
3 Cf. S. Cyril. Horn. Pasch. xxx. near the beginning.
4 Numb. ix. 2 ; Ps. Ixxxi. 3 ; Nah. i. 15.
5 Gal. iv. 10. * I Cor. v. 7.
7 Cf. Clemens Alex. Strom. 7. i. o5i«A.e(,7rTos ayamj. Also
I Thess. V. 16, 17, both in the Greek and in the Syriac vers, and
Letter 11.
8 Apparently a quotation from Scripture, perhaps from Jer. vii.
the phraseology of v. 28. being transferred to the sentiment of
V. 34. The expression has already occurred, Letter 2. 4.
9 Is. xlviii. 22. " Matt, xviii. 24.
VOL. IV. L
quence cast out for unthankfulness, hearing
the words, ' Thou wicked and slothful servant,
thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not,
and gather where I have not strawed; thou
oughtest therefore to have put my money to
the exchangers, and on my return, I should have
received mine own. Take therefore the talent
from him, and give it to him that hath ten
talents".' For, of course, when he was re-
quired to deliver up to his lord that which
belonged to him, he should have acknowledged
the kindness of him who gave it, and the value
of that which was given. For he who gave
was not a hard man, had he been so, he would
not have given even in the first instance ;
neither was that which was given unprofitable
and vain, for then he had not found fault.
But both he who gave was good, and that
which was given was capable of bearing fruit.
As therefore ' he who withholdeth corn in
seed-time is cursed '%' according to the divine
proverb, so he who neglects grace, and hides
it without culture, is properly cast out as a
wicked and unthankful person. On this ac-
count, he praises those who increased [their
talents], saying, ' Well done, good and faithful
servant; thou hast been faithful in a little, I
will place thee over much; enter into the joy
of thy Lord '3.'
3. This was right and reasonable; for, as
the Scripture declares, they had gained as
much as they had received. Now, my be-
loved, our will ought to keep pace with the
grace of God, and not fall short ; lest while
our will remains idle, the grace given us should
begin to depart, and the enemy finding us
empty and naked, should enter [into us], as
was the case with him spoken of in the Gospel,
from whom the devil went out ; ' for having
gone through dry places, he took seven other
spirits more wicked than himself; and re-
turning and finding the house empty, he dwelt
there, and the last state of that man was worse
than the first ^-t.' For the departure from virtue
gives place for the entrance of the unclean
spirit. There is, moreover, the apostolic in-
junction, that the grace given us should not
be unprofitable ; for those things which he
wrote particularly to his disciple, he en-
forces on us through him '5^ saying, ' Neglect
not the gift that is in thee. For he who tilleth
his land shall be satisfied with bread ; but the
paths of the slothful are strewn with thorns ;'
so that the Spirit forewarns a man not to fall
into them, saying, ' Break up your fallow
ground, sow not among thorns ^^.' For when
a man despises the grace given him, and forth-
II Matt. XXV. 26. 12 P'rov. xi. 26. '3 Matt. xxv. 23.
14 lb. xii. 43—45. 'S Cf. Letter 2, near beginning.
16 I Tim. iv. 14 ; Prov. xii. ir ; lb. xv. 19 ; Jer. iv. 3.
514
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
with falls into the cares of the world, he
delivers himself over to his lusts ; and thus in
the time of persecution he is offended ^t, and
becomes altogether unfruitful. Now the pro-
phet points out the end of such negligence,
saying, * Cursed is he who doeth the work of
the Lord carelessly ^^.' For a servant of the
Lord should be diligent and careful, yea,
moreover, burning like a flame, so that when,
by an ardent spirit, he has destroyed all carnal
sin, he may be able to draw near to God,
who, according to the expression of the saints,
is called ' a consuming fire ^^9,'
4. Therefore, the God of all, ' Who maketh
His angels [spirits],' is a spirit, 'and His
ministers a flame of fire\' Wherefore, in the
departure from Egypt, He forbade the multi-
tude to touch the mountain, where God was
appointing them the law, because they were
not of this character. But He called blessed
Moses to it, as being fervent in spirit, and
possessing unquenchable grace, saying, 'Let
Moses alone draw near^.' He entered into
the cloud also, and when the mountain was
sm,oking, he was not injured ; but rather,
through 'the words of the Lord, which are
choice silver purified in the earths,' he de-
scended purified. Therefore the blessed Paul,
when desirous that the grace of the Spirit
given to us should not grow cold, exhorts,
saying, ' Quench not the Spirit!' For so
shall we remain partakers of Christs, if we
hold fast to the end the Spirit given at the
beginning. For he said, 'Quench not;' not
because the Spirit is placed in the power of
men, and is able to suft'er anything from them ;
but because bad and unthankful men are such
as manifestly wish to quench it, since thev,
like the impure, persecute the Spirit with
unholy deeds. ' For the holy Spirit of disci-
pline will flee deceit, nor dwell in a body
that is subject unto sin ; but will remove from
thoughts that are without understanding^' Now
they being without understanding, and deceitful,
and lovers of sin, walk still as in darkness, not
having that 'Light which lighteth every man
that Cometh into the world?.' Now a fire such
as this laid hold of Jeremiah the prophet,
when the word was in him as a fire, and he
said, ' I pass away from every place, and am
not able to endure it^' And our Lord Jesus
Christ, being good and a lover of men, came
that He might cast this upon earth, and
said, 'And what? would that it were already
'7 <TK(i.vSaKC^eTai, Matt. xiii. 21. 18 Jer. xlviii. 10.
19 Deut. iv._ 24 ; ix. 3 ; and Heb. xii. 29. ' Ps. civ. 4.
» Exod. xxiv. 2. 3 Ps. xii. 6. 4 r Thess. v. 19.
S Conf. S. Athan. Expos, in Psalmos, t. i. p. 863. jrCp Stwtp
VoriTov, Tijv ToO ayCov Uvevfiaros /«.e'9efiv e/x^a\<ov.
' Wisd. i. 5. 7 John i. 9. 8 jer. xx. 9, cf. Letttr\<). ?.
kindled? ! ' For He desired, as He testified in
Ezekiel'°, the repentance of a man rather than
his death : so that evil should be entirely con-
sumed in all men, that the soul, being purified,
might be able to bring forth fruit; for the
word which is sown by Him will be pro-
ductive, some thirty, some sixty, some an
hundred". Thus, for instance, those who
were with Cleopas", although infirm at first
from lack of knowledge, yet afterwards were
inflamed with the words of the Saviour, and
brought forth the fruits of the knowledge of
Him, The blessed Paul also, when seized
by this fire, revealed it not to flesh and blood,
but having experienced the grace, he became
a preacher of the Word. But not such were
those nine lepers who were cleansed from
their leprosy, and yet were unthankful to the
Lord who healed them ; nor Judas, who ob-
tained the lot of an apostle, and was named
a disciple of the Lord, but at last, * while
eating bread with the Saviour, lifted up his
heel against Him, and became a traitor^s.'
But such men have the due reward of their
folly, since their expectation will be vain
through their ingratitude; for there is no hope
for the ungrateful, the last fire, prepared for
the devil and his angels, awaits those who have
neglected divine light. Such then is the end
of the unthankful.
5. But the faithful and true servants of the
Lord, knowing that the Lord loves the thank-
ful, never cease to praise Him, ever giving
thanks unto the Lord. And whether the time
is one of ease or of affliction, they ofler up
praise to God with thanksgiving, not reckon-
ing these things of time, but worshipping the
Lord, the God of times 't Thus of old time.
Job, who possessed fortitude above all men,
thought of these things when in prosperity;
and when in adversity, he patiently endured,
and when he suffered, gave thanks. As also
the humble David, in the very time of afflic-
tion sang praises and said, ' I will bless the
Lord at all times ^5.' And the blessed Paul,
in all his Epistles, so to say, ceased not to
thank God. In times of ease, he failed not,
and in afilictions he gloried, knowing that
' tribulation worketh patience, and patience
experience, and experience hope, and that
hope maketh not ashamed ^^.' Let us, being
followers of such men, pass no season without
thanksgiving, but especially now, when the
time is one of tribulation, which the heretics
excite against us, will we praise the Lord,
uttering the words of the saints j ' All these
9 Luke xii. 49. "> Ezek. xviii. 23, 32. " Mark iv. so.
12 Luke xxiv. "3 Ps. xii. 9 ; John xiii. 18.
'4 Cf. Letter I. I, note 13. '5 Ps. xxxiv. 1. '* Rom. v. 3.
LETTER IV. EASTER, 332.
515
things have come upon us, yet have we not
forgotten Thee '7.' For as the Jews at that
time, although suffering an assault from the
tabernacles '7" of the Edomites, and oppressed
by the enemies of Jerusalem, did not give
themselves up, but all the more sang praises
to God ; so we, my beloved brethren, though
hindered from speaking the word of the Lord,
will the more proclaim it, and being afflicted,
we will sing Psalms '7'i^ in that we are accounted
worthy to be despised, and to labour anxiously
for the truth. Yea, moreover, being grievously
vexed, we will give thanks. For the blessed
Apostle, who gave thanks at all times, urges us
in the same manner to draw near to God,
saying, ' Let your requests, with thanksgiving,
be made known unto God'^.' And being
desirous that we should always continue in
this resolution, he says, 'At all times give
thanks ; pray without ceasing^9.' For he knew
that believers are strong while employed in
thanksgiving, and that rejoicing they pass over
the walls of the enemy, like those saints who
said, ' Through Thee will we pierce through
our enemies, and by my God I will leap over
a wall^°.' At all times let us stand firm, but
especially now, although many afflictions over-
take us, and many heretics are furious against
us. Let us then, my beloved brethren, cele-
brate with thanksgiving the holy feast which
now draws near to us, ' girding up the loins of
our minds',' like our Saviour Jesus Christ, of
Whom it is written, ' Righteousness shall be
the girdle of His loins, and faithfulness the
girdle of His reins ^' Each one of us having
in his hand the staff which came out of the
root of Jesse, and our feet shod with the
preparation of the Gospels, let us keep the
feast as Paul saith, ' Not with the old leaven,
but with the unleavened bread of sincerity
and truth*;' reverently trusting that we are
reconciled through Christ, and not departing
from faith in Him, nor do we defile ourselves
together with heretics, and strangers to the
truth, whose conversation and whose will de-
grade them. But rejoicing in afflictions, we
break through the furnace of iron and dark-
ness, and pass, unharmed, over that terrible
Red Sea. Thus also, wlien we look upon the
confusion of heretics, we shall, with Moses,
sing that great song of praise, and say, ' We
will sing unto the Lord, for He is to be
gloriously praised s.' Thus, singing praises,
and seeing that the sin which is in us has
been cast into the sea, we pass over to the
wilderness. And being first purified by the
»7 Ps. xliv. 17.
i7i> Cf. James v. 13.
'° Ps. xviii. 29.
3 lb. xi. I ; Eph. vi. 15.
i7» Compare Ps. IxxxiH. 6.
18 Phil. iv. 6. '9 I Thess. v. 17.
I I Pet. i. 13. ' Is. xi. 5.
4 I Cor. V. 8. S Exod. xv. i.
fast of forty days, by prayers, and fastings,
and discipline, and good works, we shall be
able to eat the holy Passover in Jerusalem.
6. The beginning of the fast of forty days is
on the fifth of Phamenoth (Mar. i) ; and when,
as I have said, we have first been purified and
prepared by those days, we begin the holy week
of the great Easter on the tenth of Pharmuthi
(Apr. 5), in which, my beloved brethren, we
should use more prolonged prayers, and fast-
ings, and watchings, that we may be enabled to
anoint our lintels with precious blood, and to
escape the destroyer ^. Let us rest then, on the
fifteenth of the month Pharmuthi (Apr. io),for
on the evening of that Saturday we hear the
angels' message, ' Why seek ye the living among
the dead ? He is risen ?.' Immediately after-
wards that great Sunday receives us, I mean on
the sixteenth of the same month Pharmuthi
(April 11), on which our Lord having risen,
gave us peace towards our neighbours. When
then we have kept the feast according to His
will, let us add from that first day in the holy
week, the seven weeks of Pentecost, and as we
then receive the grace of the Spirit, let us at all
times give thanks to the Lord; through Whom
to the Father be glory and dominion, in the
Holy Ghost, for ever and ever. Amen.
Salute one another with a holy kiss. The
brethren who are with me salute you. I pray,
brethren beloved and longed for, that ye may
have health, and that ye may be mindful of us
in the Lord.
Here endeth the third Festal Letter of holy
Athanasius.
LETTER IV.
For 332.
Easter-day vii Pharmuthi'^, iv Non. Apr.;
yEra JDioclet. 48 ; Coss. Fabius Pacatianus^
Macilius Hilarianus ; Prafect, Hyginus';
Indict. V.
He sent this Letter from the Emperor's Court
by a soldier 3.
I SEND unto you, my beloved, late and beyond
the accustomed time * ; yet I trust you will
forgive the delay, on account of my protracted
journey, and because I have been tried with
illness. Being hindered by these two causes,
and unusually severe storms having occurred,
6 Exod. xii. 7, 23. 7 Luke xxiv. 5.
I The Syriac text has 17th instead of 7th. Tliere is tlie same
error in the index. U'Ijc correct day is given towards the end of
the Letter.
» There is sometimes a difficulty, in the absence of independent
testimony, in ascertaining the exact orthography of the proper
names, from the loose manner in which they are written in the
Syriac. Here, however, it is clearly Hyginus, as in Sozomen,
lib. ii. c. 25, Larsow writes it Eugenius. He has also the 46th
instead of the 48th of the Diocletian yEra. The word 'Fabius' is
not clear. In Baronii Annal. Eccles. however, we find it Ovinius.
3 See note 6 at the end of the Letter.
4 In the index it is stated that the third, but not that X}at fourth.
Letter was sent late, but see Letter 3, note i.
Ll
5i6
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
I have deferred writing to you. But notwith-
standing my long journeys, and my grievous
sickness, I have not forgotten to give you the
festal notification, and, in discharge of my duty,
I now announce to you the feast. For although
the date of this letter is later -^^ than that usual
for this announcement, it should still be con-
sidered well-timed, since our enemies having
been put to shame and reproved by the Church,
because they persecuted us without a cause s,
we may now sing a festal song of praise, utter-
ing the triumphant hymn against Pharaoh ;
' We will sing unto the Lord, for He is to be
gloriously praised ; the horse and his rider He
hath cast into the sea^.'
2. It is well, my beloved, to proceed from
feast to feast; again festal meetings, again holy
vigils arouse our minds, and compel our intellect
to keep vigil unto contemplation of good things.
Let us not fulfil these days like those that mourn,
but, by enjoying spiritual food, let us seek to
silence our fleshly lusts 7. For by these means
we shall have strength to overcome our adver-
saries, Hke blessed Judith ^, when having first
exercised herself in fastings and prayers, she
overcame the enemies, and killed Olophernes.
And blessed Esther, when destruction was
about to come on all her race, and the nation
of Israel was ready to perish, defeated the fury
of the tyrant by no other means than by fasting
and prayer to God, and changed the ruin of
her people into safety 9. Now as those days
are considered feasts for Israel, so also in old
time feasts were appointed when an enemy was
slain, or a conspiracy against the people broken
up, and Israel delivered. Therefore blessed
Moses of old time ordained the great feast of
the Passover, and our celebration of it, because,
namely, Pharaoh was killed, and the people
were delivered from bondage. For in those
times it was especially, when those who tyran-
nized over the people had been slain, that
temporal feasts and holidays were observed in
Judaea ^°.
3. Now, however, that the devil, that tyrant
against the whole world, is slain, we do not
approach a temporal feast, my beloved, but an
eternal and heavenly. Not in shadows do
we shew it forth, but we come to it in truth.
For they being filled with the flesh of a dumb
lamb, accomplished the feast, and having
anointed their door-posts with the blood, im-
plored aid against the destroyer". But now we.
4» i.e. too late to give notice of the beginning of Lent, tttfr, § $,
and Letter 5, § 6.
5 Constantine, in his letter, supr. p. 133, spealcs of the envy
of the accusers of Athan. and of their unsuccessful efforts to crimi-
nate him. 6 Exod. xv. 1.
7 Totj rijs crapKos iniTiixSivTei TTa.8e<riv. S. Cyril. Hotn. Pasck.
xx. 8 Judith xiii. 8. 9 Esther iv. 16.
10 Cf. Esther ix. 20—28 ; Judith ix. xv.
" Conf. S. Cyril. Horn. Pasch. xxiv. p. 293. Ed. Paris, 1638.
eating of the Word of the Father, and having
the lintels of our hearts sealed with the blood of
the New Testament ^^, acknowledge the grace
given us from the Saviour, who said, ' Behold,
I have given unto you to tread upon serpents
and scorpions, and over all the power of the
enemy '3.' For no more does death reign ; but
instead of death henceforth is life, since our
Lord said, ' I am the life '^ ; ' so that every-
thing is filled with joy and gladness ; as it is
written, ' The Lord reigneth, let the earth
rejoice.' For when death reigned, ' sitting
down by the rivers of Babylon, we wept's^'
and mourned, because we felt the bitterness of
captivity ; but now that death and the kingdom
of the devil is abolished, everything is entirely
filled with joy and gladness. And God is no
longer known onlyin Judsea,but in all the earth,
* their voice hath gone forth, and the knowledge
of Him hath filled all the earth ^^.' What
follows, my beloved, is obvious ; that we should
approach such a feast, not with filthy raiment,
but having clothed our minds with pure
garments. For we need in this to put on our
Lord Jesus ^t, that we may be able to celebrate
the feast with Him. Now we are clothed with
Him when we love virtue, and are enemies to
wickedness, when we exercise ourselves in
temperance and mortify lasciviousness, when
we love righteousness before iniquity, when
we honour sufficiency, and have strength of
mind, when we do not forget the poor, but
open our doors to all men, when we assist
humble-mindedness, but hate pride.
4. By these things Israel of old, having first,
as in a figure, striven for the victory, came to
the feast, for these things were then fore-
shadowed and typified. But we, my beloved,
the shadow having received its fulfilment, and
the types being accomplished, should no longer
consider the feast typical, neither should we go
up to Jerusalem which is here below, to sacri-
fice the Passover, according to the unseasonable
observance of the Jews, lest, while the season
passes away, we should be regarded as acting
unseasonably'^; but, in accordance with the
injunction of the Apostles, let us go beyond
the types, and sing the new song of praise.
For perceiving this, and being assembled
together with the Truth '9, they drew near, and
said unto our Saviour, ' Where wilt Thou that
we should make ready for Thee the Passover'?'
For no longer were these things to be done
which belonged to Jerusalem which is beneath ;
neither there alone was the feast to be cele-
brated, but wherever God willed it to be. Now
'» Matt. xxvi. s8. ^^ '3 Luke x. 19, Vit. Ant. 30. _
'4 John xiv. 6. 'S Ps. xcvii. i ; cxxxvii. i. 16 lb. Ixxvi. i ;
xix. 4. '7 Cf. Rom. xiii. 14. '8 Cf. Letter i. (beginning)
19 OTiv TJj aArjfleiqi. I understand this as referring to Christ.
Vid. John xiv. 6. ' Matt. xxvi. 17.
LETTER V. EASTER, S35-
517
He willed it to be in every place, so that 'in
every place incense and a sacrifice might be
offered to Him ^' For although, as in the
historical account, in no other place might the
feast of the Passover be kept save only in
Jerusalem, yet when the things pertaining to
that time were fulfilled, and those which
belonged to shadows had passed away, and the
preaching of the Gospel was about to extend
everywhere ; when indeed the disciples were
spreading the feast in all places, they asked the
Saviour, 'Where wilt Thou that we shall make
ready?' The Saviour also, since He was
changing the typical for the spiritual, promised
them that they should no longer eat the flesh
of a lamb, but His own, saying, ' Take, eat and
drink ; this is My body, and My blood 3.'
When we are thus nourished by these things,
we also, my beloved, shall truly keep the
feast of the Passover.
5. We begin on the first of Pharmuthi
(Mar. 27), and rest on the sixth of the same
month (Apr. i), on the evening of the seventh
day; and the holy first day of the week having
risen upon us on the seventh of the same
Pharmuthi (Apr. 2), celebrate we too the
days of holy Pentecost following thereon,
shewing forth through them the world to
come •^, so that henceforth we may be with
Christ for ever, praising God over all in Christ
Jesus, and through Hifn, with all saints, we
say unto the Lord, Amen. Salute one another
with a holy kiss. All the brethren who are
with me salute you. We have sent this letter
from the Court, by the hand of an attendant
officer s, to whom it was given by Ablavius ^,
the Prsefect of the Prsetorium, who fears God
in truth. For I am at the Court, having been
summoned by the emperor Constantine to see
him. But the Meletians, who were present
there, being envious, sought our ruin before
the Emperor. But they were put to shame
and driven away thence as calumniators, being
confuted by many things. Those who were
driven away were Callinicus, Tsion, Eudsemon,
and Geloeus 7 Hieracammon, who, on account
of the shame of his name, calls himself Eu-
logius.
Here endeth the fourth Festal Letter of holy
Athanasius.
' Mai. i. II. 3 Matt. xxvi. 26 — 28.
4 Of. Bingham, xx. ch. 6 ; Cass. Coi/. xxi. 11 ; Cyril uses the
same comparison towards the end of his 26th Paschal discourse.
5 'Orticilius.' Cureton considers this may be an error for the
Latin Officialis.
6 Ablavius, Praefect of the East, the minister and favourite
of Constantine the Great, was murdered after the death of the
latter. He was consul in the preceding year. Zozimus ii. 40.
(Smith's Diet. ofGr. and Rom. Biography.)
7 The name means ' Laughable.'
LETTER V.
For 333.
Easter-day ^, Coss. Dalinatius and Zenophilus ,
Prcsfect, Paternus ^ / vi Jndici. ; xvii Kal.
Mail, XX Pharmuthi ; xv Moott ; vii Gods;
^ra Dioclet. 49.
We duly proceed, my brethren, from feasts
to feasts, duly from prayers to prayers, we
advance from fasts to fasts, and join holy-days
to holy-days. Again the time has arrived
which brings to us a new beginning 3, even
the announcement of the blessed Passover,
in which the Lord was sacrificed. We eat,
as it were, the food of life, and con tantly
thirsting we delight our souls at all timc^, as
from a fountain, in His precious blood. For we
continuallyand ardently desire; He stands ready
for those who thirst ; and for those who thirst
there is the word of our Saviour, which, in
His loving-kindness. He uttered on the day of
the feast ; ' If any man thirst, let him come to
Me and drink ■*.' Nor was it then alone v/hen
any one drew near to Him, that He cured his
thirst ; but whenever any one seeks, there is
free access for him to the Saviour. For the
grace of the feast is not limited to one
time, nor does its splendid brilliancy de-
cline; but it is always near, enlightening
the minds of those who earnestly desire its.
For therein is constant virtue, for those
who are illuminated in their miuiis, and me-
ditate on the divine Scriptures day and night,
like the man to whom a blessing i.s given, as
it is written in the sacred Psalms; 'Blessed
is the man who hath not walked in the counsel
of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners,
nor sat in the seat of corrupters. But his de-
light is in the law of the Lord, and in His law
doth he meditate day and night ^.' For it is
not the sun, or the moon, or the host of those
other stars which illumines him, but he glitters
with the high effulgence of God over all.
2. For it is God, my beloved, even the God
Who at first established the feast for us. Who
vouchsafes the celebration of it year by year.
He both brought about the slaying of His Son
for salvation, and gave us this reason for the
holy feast, to which every year bears witness,
as often as at this season the feast is pro-
claimed. This also leads us on from the cross
through this world to that which is before
us, and God produces even now from it the
1 See supr. Table D, and note. The full moon (' Moon xiv ')
was really on Pharm. 20, but seems to have been calculated to fall
on the previous day.
2 The Syriac seems to represent 'Paterius,' not 'Paternus' as
Larsow writes it. A former prxfcct of Egypt was called Paterius,
according to Gelas. Cyz. in Hard. Cone. i. 459.
3 Cf. Rev. iii. 14, c. ApoU. i. 20.
4 John vii. 37. The Syriac is rather obscure here.
5 Vid. note 2, to Letter i. " Ps. i. i. ?
518
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
joy of glorious salvation, bringing us to the
same assembly, and in every place uniting all
of us in spirit; appointing us common prayers,
and a common grace proceeding from the
feast. For this is the marvel of His loving-
kindness, that He should gather together in
the same place those who are at a distance ;
and make those who appear to be far off in
the body, to be near together in unity of
spirit.
3. Wherefore then, my beloved, do we not
acknowledge the grace as becometh the feast ?
Wherefore do we not make a return to our
Benefactor? It is indeed impossible to make
an adequate return to God; still, it is a wicked
thing for us who receive the gracious gift, not
to acknowledge it. Nature itself manifests our
inability ; but our own will reproves our un-
thankfulness. Therefore the blessed Paul,
when admiring the greatness of the gift of
God, said, ' And who is sufficient for these
things 7 ? ' For He made the world free by the
blood of the Saviour; then, again, He has
caused the grave to be trodden down by the
Saviour's death, and furnished a way to the
heavenly gates free from obstacles to those
who are going up ^. Wherefore, one of
the saints, while he acknowledged the grace,
but was insufficient to repay it, said, ' What
shall I render unto the Lord for all He
has done unto me 9 ? ' For instead of
death he had received life, instead of bon-
dage ^°, freedom, and instead of the grave,
the kingdom of heaven. For of old time,
' death reigned from Adam to Moses ; ' but
now the divine voice hath said, ' To-day shalt
thou be with Me in Paradise.' And the saints,
being sensible of this, said, ' Except the Lord
had helped me, my soul had almost dwelt in
hell '°*.' Besides all this, being powerless to
make a return, he yet acknowledged the
gift, and wrote finally, saying, ' I will take the
cup of salvation, and call on the name of the
Lord ; precious in His sight is the death of
His saints ".'
With regard to the cup, the Lord said, 'Are
ye able to drink of that cup which I am about
to drink of?' And when the disciples assented,
the Lord said, ' Ye shall indeed drink of My
cup ; but that ye should sit on My right hand,
and on My left, is not Mine to give ; but to
those for whom it is prepared ^^' Therefore,
my beloved, let us be sensible of the gift,
7 2 Cor. ii. 17.
8 This sentence is preserved in the original Greek in Cosmas,
Topogr. Christ, p. 316. 9 Ps. cxvi. 12.
10 Pseudo-Ath. in Matt. xxi. 9. (Migne xxviii. 1025), after
(juoting the same passage from the Epistle to the Romans, says,
aXK £7rcSi)^n)(r«i' 6 Kvpios rnxdv "IijcroOs Xpicrrbs Avrpovjuevo; Tovs
ot)^Ha\a)TOvs, Koi fwOTrotw tous TeBavaTWfjLevovi.
io» Rom. V. 14 ; Luke xxiii. 43 ; Ps. xciv. 17.
'1 Ps. cxvi. 13, 15. 12 Matt. XX. 22, 23
though we are found insufficient to repay it
As we have ability, let us meet the occasion.
For although nature is not able, with things
unworthy of the Word, to return a recompense
for such benefits, yet let us render Him thanks
while we persevere in piety. And how can we
more abide in piety than when we acknow-
ledge God, Who in His love to mankind has
bestowed on us such benefits ? (For thus we
shall obediently keep the law, and observe its
commandments. And, further, we shall not,
as unthankful persons, be accounted trans-
gressors of the law, or do those things which
ought to be hated, for the Lord loveth the
thankful) ; when too we offer ourselves to the
Lord, like the saints, when we subscribe our-
selves entirely [as] living henceforth not to our-
selves, but to the Lord Who died for us, as
also the blessed Paul did, when he said, 'I am
crucified with Christ, yet I live ; yet not I,
but Christ liveth in me '3.'
4. Now our life, my brethren, truly consists
in our denying all bodily things, and continuing
stedfast in those only of our Saviour. There-
fore the present season requires of us, that we
should not only utter such words, but should
also imitate the deeds of the saints. But we
imitate them, when we acknowledge Him who
died, and no longer live unto ourselves, but
Christ henceforth lives in us ; when we render
a recompense to the Lord to the utmost of
our power, though when we make a return
we give nothing of our own, but those things
which we have before received from Him,
this being especially of His grace, that He
should require, as from us. His own gifts. He
bears witness to this when He says, ' My offer-
ings are My own gifts '<.' That is, those things
which you give Me are yours, as having re-
ceived them from Me, but they are the gifts
of God. And let us offer to the Lord every
virtue, and that true holiness which is in Him,
and in piety let us keep the feast to Him with
those things which He has hallowed for us.
Let us thus engage in the holy fasts, as having
been prescribed by Him, and by means of
which we find the way to God. But let us
not be like the heathen, or the ignorant Jews,
or as the heretics and schismatics of the pre-
sent time. For the heathen think the accom-
plishment of the feast is in the abundance of
food ; the Jews, erring in the type and shadow,
think it still such ; the schismatics keep it in
separate places, and with vain imaginations.
But let us, my brethren, be superior to the
heathen, in keeping the feast with sincerity of
soul, and purity of body ; to the Jews, in no
longer receiving the type and the shadow, but
13 Gal. ii. 30.
14 Num. xxviii. 2, LXX.
LETTER VI. EASTER, 334.
519
as having been gloriously illumined with the
light of truth, and as looking upon the Sun
of Righteousness ^5 j to the schismatics, in not
rending the coat of Christ, but in one house,
even in the Catholic Church, let us eat the
Passover of the Lord, Who, by ordaining His
holy laws, guided us towards virtue, and coun-
selled the abstinence of this feast. For the
Passover is indeed abstinence from evil for
exercise of virtue, and a departure from death
unto life. This may be learnt even from the
type of old time. For then they toiled ear-
nestly to pass from Egypt to Jerusalem, but now
we depart from death to life ; they then passed
from Pharaoh to Moses, but now we rise from
the devil to the Saviour. And as, at that time,
the type of deliverance bore witness every
year, so now we commemorate our salvation.
We fast meditating on death, that we may be
able to live ; and we watch, not as mourners,
but as they that wait for the Lord, when He
shall have returned from the wedding, so that
we may vie with each other in the triumph,
hastening to announce the sign of victory over
death.
5. Would therefore, O my beloved, that as
the word requires, we might here so govern
ourselves at all times and entirely, and so
live, as never to forget the noble acts of God,
nor to depart from the practice of virtue !
As also the Apostolic voice exhorts ; ' Re-
member Jesus Christ, that He rose from the
dead ^^.' Not that any limited season of re-
membrance was appointed, for at all times He
should be in our thoughts. But because of
the slothfulness of many, we delay from day
to day. Let us then begin in these days.
To this end a time of remembrance is per-
mitted, that it may show forth to the saints the
reward of their calling, and may exhort the care-
less while reproving them '7. Therefore in all
the remaining days, let us persevere in virtuous
conduct, repenting as is our duty, of all that
we have neglected, whatever it may be ; for
there is no one free from defilement, though
his course may have been but one hour on the
earth, as Job, that man of surpassing forti-
tude, testifies. But, ' stretching forth to those
things that are to come '^,' let us pray that we
may not eat the Passover unworthily, lest we
be exposed to dangers. For to those who
keep the feast in purity, the Passover is
heavenly food ; but to those who observe it
profanely and contemptuously, it is a danger
and reproach. For it is written, * Whosoever
IS Mai. iv. 2. '* 2 Tim. ii. 8.
17 The reasoning of Athan. is to this effect. The due observ-
ance of such festival will have its effect in quickening our habitvai
meditation on the resurrection. The same mode of reasoning
might be applied to all the other Christian festivals.
IB Job XIV. 4 (LXX.) ; Phil. iii. 13.
shall eat and drink unworthily, is guilty of the
death of our Lord '5.' Wherefore, let us not
merely proceed to perform the festal rites, but
let us be prepared to draw near to the divine
Lamb, and to touch heavenly food. Let us
cleanse our hands, let us purify the body.
Let us keep our whole mind from guile ; not
giving up ourselves to excess, and to lusts, but.
occupying ourselves entirely wii:h oi.r Lord,
and with divine doctrines ; so that, being
altogether pure, we may be able to partake of
the Word ^^
6. We begin the holy fast on the fourteenth
of Pharmuthi (Apr. 9), on the [first] evening of
theweek^^ ; and having ceased on the nineteenth
of the same month Pharmuthi (Apr 14), the
first day of the holy week dawns upon us on
the twentieth of the same month Pharmuthi
(Apr. 15), to which we join the seven weeks of
Pentecost ; with prayers, and fellowship with
our neighbour, and love towards one another,
and that peaceable will which is above all.
For so shall we be heirs of the kingdom of
heaven, through our Lord Jesus Christ, through
Whom to the Father be glory and dominion
for ever and ever. Amen. All the brethren
who are with me salute you. Salute one an-
other with a holy kiss.
Here endeth the fifth Festal Letter of holy
Athanasius.
LETTER VL
For 334.
Easter-day, xii Fha?'miiih-, vii Id. April:
xvii Moon ; yEraDiodd. 50, Cass. Optatus
Patricius, Anicius Paulinics ; Prnfcct, Phi-
lagrius ^, the Cappadocian ; vii Indict.
Now again, my beloved, has God brought
us to the season of the feast, and through His
loving-kindness we have reached the period of
assembly for it. For that God who brought
Israel out of Egypt, even He at this time calls
us to the feast, saying by Moses, ' Observe the
month of new fruits*, and keep the Passover
to the Lord thy God3:' and by the prophet,
' Keep thy feasts, O Judah ; pay to the Lord
thy VOWS+.' If then God Himself loves the
feast, and calls us to it, it is not right, my
brethren, that it should be delayed, or ob-
served carelessly; but with alacrity and zeal
we should come to it, so that having begun
joyfully here, we may also receive an earnest
of that heavenly feast. For if we diligently
celebrate the feast here, we shall doubtless
receive the perfect joy which is in heaven, ab
19 I Cor. xi. 27. 20 or. 2 Pet. i. 4. «« Syr. ' sabbath.
1 The index gives still Paternus for Letters 6 and 7. On Phil*.
i rius, see p. 93, note 2. »t 1. •
2 Cf. i. 9, n. 12. 3 Deut. xvi. x. ♦ Nahum 1. 15.
520
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
the Lord says ; * With desire I have desired to
eat this Passover with you before I suffer.
For I say unto, you, that I will not eat it,
until it is fulfilled with you in the kingdom of
Gods.' Now we eat it if, understanding the
reason of the feast, and acknowledging the
Deliverer, we conduct ourselves in accordance
with His grace, as Paul saith ; ' So that we
may keep the Feast, not with old leaven,
neither with the leaven of wickedness ; but
with the unleavened bread of sincerity and
truth "5.' For the Lord died in those days, that
we should no longer do the deeds of death.
He gave His life, that we might preserve our
own from the snares of the devil. And, what
is most wonderful, the Word became flesh,
that we should no longer live in the flesh, but
in spirit should worship God, who is Spirit.
He who is not so disposed, abuses the days,
and does not keep the feast, but like an
unthankful person finds fault with the grace,
and honours the days overmuch, while he does
not supplicate the Lord wlio in those days re-
deemed him. Let him by all means hear, though
fancying that he keeps the feast, the Apostolic
voice reproving him ; ' Ye observe days, and
months, and times, and years : I fear lest I
have laboured among you in vain 7.'
2. For the feast is not on account of the
days ; but for the Lord's sake, who then suf-
fered for us, we celebrate it, for ' our Passover,
Christ, is sacrificed^.' Even as Moses, when
teaching Israel not to consider the feast as
pertaining to the days, but to the Lord, said,
* It is the Lord's Passover 9.' To the Jews,
when they thought they were keeping the
Passover, because they persecuted the Lord,
the feast was useless ; since it no longer bore
the name of the Lord, even according to their
own testimony. It was not the Passover of
the Lord, but that of the Jews '°. The Pass-
over was named after the Jews, my brethren,
because they denied the Lord of the Passover.
On this account, the Lord, turning away His
face from such a doctrine of theirs, saith,
' Your new moons and your sabbaths My soul
hateth ".'
3. So now, those who keep the Passover
in like manner, the Lord again reproves, as
He did those lepers who were cleansed, when
He loved the one as thankful, but was angry
with the others as ungrateful, because they did
not acknowledge their Deliverer, but thought
more of the cure of the leprosy than of Him
who healed them. ' But one of them when
he saw that he was healed, turned back, and
5 Luke xxii. 15, 16. 6 i Cor. v. 8.
1 Gal. iv. 10, II. 8 I Cor. y, 7. 9 Exod. xii. 11.
'° Cf. John vi. 4. ' And the passover, a feast of the Jews,
was nigh.' Cf. Origenis Comment, in loannem, torn. x. § 11.
p. 172. ed. 1759. II Is. i. 14.
with a loud voice glorified God, and fell on his
face at the feet of Jesus giving Him thanks ;
and he was a Samaritan. And Jesus answer-
ing said. Were there not ten cleansed ? but
those nine — whence are there none found
who returned to give glory to God, but this
stranger"^?' And there was more given to him
than to the rest; for being cleansed from his
leprosy, he heard from the Lord, ' Arise, go
thy way, thy faith hath saved thee ^3.' For
he who gives tlianks, and he who glorifies,
have kindred feelings, in that they bless their
Helper for the benefits they have received.
So the Apostle exhorts all men to this, say-
ing, ' Glorify God with your body ; ' and the
prophet commands, saying, ' Give glory to
God.' Although testimony was borne by Caia-
phas '4 against our Redeemer, and He was
set at nought by the Jews, and was condemned
by Pilate in those days, yet exalted exceed-
ingly and most mighty was the voice of the
Father which came to Him ; ' I have glorified,
and will glorify again ^s.' For those things
which He suffered for our sake have passed
away \ but those which belong to Him as the
Saviour remain for ever.
4. But in our commemoration of these things,
my brethren, let us not be occupied with meats,
but let us glorify the Lord, let us become fools
for Him who died for us, even as Paul said ;
' For if we are foolish, it is to God ; or if we
are sober-minded, it is to you ; since because
one died for all men, therefore all were dead
to Him ; and He died for all, that we who
live should not henceforth live to ourselves,
but to Him who died for us, and rose again '^.'
No longer then ought we to live to ourselves,
but, as servants to the Lord. And not in vain
should we receive the grace, as the time is
especially an acceptable one^7j and the day of
salvation hath dawned, even the death of our
Redeemer'^. For even for our sakes the Word
came down, and being incorruptible, put on
a corruptible body for the salvation of all of
us. Of which Paul was confident, saying,
'This corruptible must put on incorruption '9. '
The Lord too was sacrificed, that by His blood
He might abolish death. Full well did He
once, in a certain place, blame those who
participated vainly in the shedding of His
blood, while they did not delight themselves
in the flesh of the Word, saying, ' What profit
is there in my blood, that I go down to cor-
ruption^°?' This does not mean that the
descent of the Lord was without profit, for
it gained the whole world ; but rather that
12 Luke xvii. 15, &c.
13 lb. 19.
14 I Cor. vi. 20 ;
Is. xlii. 12 ; Matt, xxvi. 6s. 'S John xii. 28. 16 2 Cor. v. 13 — 15.
18 Cf. S. Cyril. Hom. Pasch. xxiv. sub init.
17 lb. vi. I, 2.
'9 I Cor. XV. 53.
20 Ps. XXX. 9.
LETTER VI. EASTER, 334.
52r
after He had thus suffered, sinners would
prefer to suffer loss than to profit by it. For
He regarded our salvation as a delight and
a peculiar gain ; while on the contrary He
looked upon our destruction as loss.
5. Also in the Gospel, He praises those who
increased the grace twofold, both him who
made ten talents of five, and him who made
four talents of two, as those who had profited,
and turned them to good account ; but him
who hid the talent He cast out as wanting,
saying to him, 'Thou wicked servant! ought-
est thou not to have put My money to the
exchangers? then at My coming I should
have received Mine own with interest. Take,
therefore, from him the talent, and give it to
him that hath ten talents. For to every one
that hath shall be given, and he shall have
more abundantly; but from him that hath not,
shall be taken away even that which he hath.
And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer
darkness ; there shall be weeping and gnashing
of teeth ^^' For it is not His will that the grace
we have received should be unprofitable ; but
He requires us to take pains to render Him
His own fruits, as the blessed Paul saith ;
' The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, and
peaces' Having therefore this right resolu-
tion, and owing no man anything, but rather
giving everything to every man, he was a
teacher of the like rightness of principle,
saying, ' Render to all their dues^' He was
like those sent by the householder to receive
the fruits of the vineyard from the husband-
men 3 ; for he exhorted all men to render a
return. But Israel despised and would not
render, for their will was not right, nay more-
over they killed those that were sent, and not
even betbre the Lord of the vineyard were
they ashamed, but even He was slain by them.
Verily, when He came and found no fruit
in them. He cursed them through tlie fig-tree,
saying, ' Let there be henceforth no fruit from
thee 4 ; ' and the fig-tree was dead and fruitless,
so that even the disciples wondered when it
withered away.
6. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken
by the prophet ; ' I will take away from them
the voice of joy and the voice of gladness,
the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of
the bride, the scent of myrrh, and the light of
a lamp, and the whole land shall be destroyed s.'
For the whole service of the law has been
abolished from them, and henceforth and for
ever they remain without a feast. And they
observe not the Passover ; for how can they ?
They have no abiding place, but they wander
« Matt. XXV. 26—30. I Gal. V. 22. » Rom. xiii. 7.
S Matt. xxi. 33. * lb 19- 5 Jer. xxv. 10.
everywhere. And they eat unleavened urcad
contrary to the law, since they are unable first
to sacrifice the lamb, as they were commanded
to do when eating unleavened bread. But in
every place they transgress the law, and as the
judgments of God require, they keep days of
grief instead of gladness. Now the cause of
this to them was the slaying of the Lord, and
that they did not reverence the Only-Begotten.
At this time the altogether wicked heretics
and ignorant schismatics are in the same case ;
the one in that they slay the Word, the other
in that they rend the coat. They too remain
expelled from the feast, because they live with-
out godliness and knowledge, and emulate the
conduct shewn in the matter of Bar- Abbas the
robber, whom the Jews desired instead of the
Saviour. Therefore the Lord cursed them
under the figure of the fig-tree. Yet even
thus He spared them in His loving-kindness,
not destroying them root and all. For He
did not curse the root, but [said], that no man
should eat fruit of it thenceforth. When He
did this, He abolished the shadow, causing it
to wither ; but preserved the root, so that we
might [not]^ be grafted upon it ; * they too, if
they abide not in unbelief, may attain to be
grafted into their own olive tree 7.' Now when
the Lord had cursed them because of their
negligence, He removed from them the new
moons, the true lamb, and that which is truly
the Passover.
7. But to us it came : there came too the
solemn day, in which we ouglit to call to the
feast with a trumpet ^, and separate ourselves
to the Lord with thanksgiving, considering it
as our own festival 9. For we are bound to
celebrate it, not to ourselves but to the Lord;
and to rejoice, not in ourselves but in the
Lord, who bore our griefs and said, ' My
soul is sorrowful unto death '°.' For the hea-
then, and all those who are strangers to our
faith, keep feasts according to their own wills,
and have no peace, since they commit evil
against God. But the saints, as they live to
the Lord also keep the feast to Him, saying,
T will rejoice in Thy salvation,' and, 'my soul
shall be joyful in the Lord.' The command-
ment is common to them, ' Rejoice, ye right-
eous, in the Lord " ' — so that they also may be
gathered together, to sing that common and
festal Psalm, ' Come, let us rejoice",' not in
ourselves, but, ' in the Lord.'
6 The negative (which is here placed within brackets) is found
in the Syriac text ; but there is little doubt that it is an error.
8 cl'^LTiteri. S. Cyril, Horn. i. dt Festis Pasch. voL r.
^ '/'The Passover is no longer to be a feast of the Jews : it is to
be celebrated by Christians as a festival of the Lord. Vid. §2.
n. 10. " Matt. xxvi. 38. " Ps. ix. 14, xxxv. 9 ; lb,
xxxiii. I. " Ps. xcv. i.
522
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
8. For thus the patriarch Abraham rejoiced
not to see his own day, but that of the Lord ;
and thus looking forward ' he saw it, and was
glad '3.' And when he was tried, by faith he
offered up Isaac, and sacrificed his only-be-
gotten son — he who had received the promises.
And, in offering his son, he worshipped the
Son of God. And, being restrained from sa-
crificing Isaac, he saw the Messiah in the
ram ^*, which was offered up instead as a
sacrifice to God. The patriarch was tried,
through Isaac, not however that he was sa-
crificed, but He who was pointed out in Isaiah;
* He shall be led as a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers he shall
be speechless 'S j ' but He took away the sin
of the world. And on this account [Abraham]
was restrained from laying his hand on the
lad, lest the Jews, taking occasion from the
sacrifice of Isaac, should reject the prophetic
declarations concerning our Saviour, even all
of them, but more especially those uttered by
the Psalmist; 'Sacrifice and offering Thou
wouldest not ; a body Thou hast prepared
Me ^^ ; ' and should refer all such things as
these to the son of Abraham.
9. For the sacrifice was not properly the
setting to rights'? of Isaac, but of Abraham
who also offered, and by that was tried.
Thus God accepted the will of the offerer,
but prevented that which was offered from
being sacrificed. For the death of Isaac did
not procure freedom to the world, but that of
our Saviour alone, by whose stripes we all are
healed'^. For He raised up the falling, healed
the sick, satisfied those who were hungry, and
filled the poor, and, what is more wonderful,
raised us all from the dead ; having abolished
death, He has brought us from affliction and
sighing to the rest and gladness of this feast,
a joy which reacheth even to heaven. For
not we alone are affected by this, but because
of it, even the heavens rejoice with us, and
the whole church of the firstborn, written in
heaven '9, is made glad together, as the prophet
proclaims, saying, ' Rejoice, ye heavens, for the
Lord hath had mercy upon Israel. Shout,
ye foundations of the earth. Cry out with
joy, ye mountains, ye high places, and all the
trees which are in them, for the Lord hath
redeemed Jacob, and Israel hath been glori-
fied ^°.' And again ; ' Rejoice, and be glad,
ye heavens; let the hills melt into gladness.
U John viii. 56 ; Heb. xi. 17.
i^ Gen. xxii. 15. The Syriac, here rendered by 'ram,' is the
usual word for sheep, common gender. It is the same word that
is used directly after, in the quotation from Isaiah, and rendered
'lamb.' 15 Is. liii. 7. 16 Ps. xl. 6.
'7 The phrase 'setting to rights' is used for want of one
that would better express the meaning. The Syriac noun is
that used to render SiopSwo-ts in Heb. ix. 10, from a verb ' to
make straight, set upright, or right.' 18 Js. liij. j,
»9 Heb. xii. 2q. 20 Is. xliv. 23.
for the Lord hath had mercy on His people,
and comforted the oppressed of the people ^'
10. The whole creation keeps a feast, my
brethren, and everything that hath breath
praises the Lord ^, as the Psalmist [says], on
account of the destruction of the enemies, and
our salvation. And justly indeed ; for if there
is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteths,
what should there not be over the abolition
of sin, and the resurrection of the dead? Oh
what a feast, and how great the gladness in
heaven ! how must all its hosts joy and exult,
as they rejoice and watch in our assemblies,
those that are held continually, and especially
those at Easter? For they look on sinners
while they repent; on those who have turned
away their faces, when they become converted;
on those who formerly persisted in lusts and
excess, but who now humble themselves by
fastings and temperance ; and, finally, on the
enemy who lies weakened, lifeless, bound hand
and foot, so that we may mock at him; 'Where
is thy victory, O Death ? where is thy sting,
O Grave * ? ' Let us then sing unto the Lord
a song of victory.
1 1, Who then will lead us to such a company
of angels as this ? Who, coming with a desire
for the heavenly feast, and the angehc hohday,
will say like the prophet, ' I will pass to the
place of the wondrous tabernacle, unto the
house of God ; with the voice of joy and
praise, with the shouting of those who keep
festival s ? ' To this course the saints also en-
courage us, saying, ' Come, let us go up to
the mountain of the Lord, and to the house
of the God of Jacob ^.' But not for the impure
is this feast, nor is the ascent thereto for
sinners ; but it is for the virtuous and dili-
gent; and for those who live according to
the aim of the saints ; for, ' Who shall ascend
to the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in
His holy place, but he that hath clean hands,
and a pure heart ; who hath not devoted his
soul to vanity, nor sworn deceitfully to his
neighbour. For he,' as the Psalmist adds,
when he goes up, 'shall receive a blessing
from the Lord?.' Now this clearly also refers
to what the Lord gives to them at the right
hand, saying, ' Come, ye blessed, inherit the
kingdom prepared for you^.' But the deceitful,
and he that is not pure of heart, and possesses
nothing that is pure (as the Proverb saith, 'To
a deceitful man there is nothing good 9 '), shall
assuredly, being a stranger, and of a different
race from the saints, be accounted unworthy
to eat the Passover, for ' a foreigner shall not
I
4
I Is. xlix, 13. =" Ps. cl, 6. 3 Luke xv, 7. * 1 Cor.
XV. 55. Cf. Incam. 27. S Ps. xlii, 4, ' Is. ii. 3.
7 Ps. xxiv. 3, 8 Matt, xxv, 34. 9 Prov. xiii, 13,
LXX.
LETTER VII. EASTER, 335.
523
eat of it ^°.' Thus Judas, when he thought he
kept the Passover, because he plotted deceit
against the Saviour, was estranged from the
city which is above, and from the apostolic
company. For the law commanded the Pass-
over to be eaten with due observance ; but he,
while eating it, was sifted of the devil ", who
had entered his soul.
12. Wherefore let us not celebrate the feast
after an earthly manner, but as keeping festival
in heaven with the angels. Let us glorify
the Lord, by chastity, by righteousness, and
other virtues. And let us rejoice, not in
ourselves, but in the Lord, that we may be
inheritors with the saints. Let us keep the
feast then, as Moses. Let us watch like David,
who rose seven times, and in the middle of
the night gave thanks for the righteous judg-
ments of God. Let us be early, as he said,
* In the morning I will stand before Thee, and
Thou wilt look upon me: in the morning Thou
wilt hear my voice ^^' Let us fast Hke Daniel;
let us pray without ceasing, as Paul command-
ed ; all of us recognising the season of prayer,
but especially those who are honourably mar-
ried ; so that having borne witness to these
things, and thus having kept the feast, we
may be able to enter into the joy of Christ
in the kingdom of heaven '3. But as Israel,
when going up to Jerusalem, was first purified
in the wilderness, being trained to forget the
customs of Egypt, the Word by this typify-
ing to us the holy fast of forty days, let us
first be purified and freed from defilement ^4^
so that when we depart hence, having been
careful of fasting, we may be able to ascend
to the upper chamber 's with the Lord, to sup
with Him ; and may be partakers of the joy
which is in heaven. In no other manner is
it possible to go up to Jerusalem, and to eat
the Passover, except by observing the fast of
forty days.
13. We begin the fast of forty days on the
first day of the month Phamenoth (Feb. 25);
and having prolonged it till the fifth of Phar-
muthi (Mar. 31), suspending it upon the Sun-
days and the Saturdays '^ preceding them, we
then begin again on the holy days of Easter,
on the sixth of Pharmuthi (Apr. i), and cease
on the eleventh of the sam.e month (Apr. 6),
late in the evening ^7 of the Saturday, whence
dawns on us the holy Sunday, on the twelfth
10 Exod. xii. 43. '" Cf. Lukexxii. 31. _" Ps. v. 3. _
>3 A line or two is preserved here in the original Greek in
Cosmas Tofiog. Christ, p. 316.
»4 Gregory Nazianzen speaks of the Lenten fast as Ka5ap<ris
TrpofopTios, vol. i. p. 715. § 30. ed. Ben. fol. Par. 1778.
'5 Cf. Luke xiv. 15.
16 The Saturdays and Sundays during Lent were not observed
as fasts, with the exception of the day before Easter-day. S. Am-
brose says, Quadragesima tot's praeter Sabbatum et Dominicam
iejunatur diebus. vol. 1. p. 545, § 34. ed Par. i686-go.
17 Cf. Dionys Alex, ad Basilid. in Routh Rell. Sac. iii. 326.
of Pharmuthi (Apr. 7), which extends its beams,
with unobscured grace, to all the seven weeks
of the holy Pentecost. Resting on that day,
let us ever keep Easter joy in Christ Jesus
our Lord, through Whom, to the Father, be
glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
All the brethren who are with me salute you.
Salute one another with a holy kiss.
Here endeth the sixth Festal Letter of the
holy and God-clad Athanasius.
LETTER VIL
For 335.
Easter-day iv Pharmuthi, iii Kal. April ; xx
Moon; ^r. Dioclet. 51 / Coss. Julius Con-
staniius, the brother of Augustus, Rufiiius
Albinus ; Prcefect, the same Philagrius ; viii
Indict.
The blessed Paul ^ wrote to the Corinthians'
that he always bore in his body the dying of
Jesus, not as though he alone should make
that boast, but also they and we too, and in
this let us be followers of him, my brethren.
And let this be the customary iDoast of all of
us at all times. In this David participated,
saying in the Psalms, ' For thy sake we die all
the day ; we are accounted as sheep for the
slaughters.' Now this is becoming in us,
especially in the days of the feast, when a com-
memoration of the death of our Saviour is
held. For he who is made like Him in His
death, is also diligent in virtuous practices,
having mortified his members which are upon
the earth *, and crucifying the flesh with the
affections and lusts, he hves in the Spirit, and
is conformed to the Spirits, He is always
mindful of God, and forgets Him not, and
never does the deeds of death. Now, in order
that we may bear in our body the dying of
Jesus, he immediately adds the way of such
fellowship, saying^ ' we having the same spirit of
faith, as it is written, I believed, and therefore
have I spoken ; we also believe, and therefore
speak ^.' He adds also, speaking of the grace
that arises from knowledge ; ' For He that
raised up Jesus, will also raise us up with
Jesus, and will present us before Him with
you7.'
2. When by such faith and knowledge the
saints have embraced this true life, they receive,
doubtless, the joy which is in heaven; lor
which the wicked not caring, are deservedly
I The twentieth Letter, as far ^ it is extant, bears a great
resemblance with this. In both, the comparison between natural
and spiritual food is enlarged upon, and several of the same quota-
tions are adduced in them, to illustrate the character of sinners
and their food, as contrasted with righteous, and the nourishment
they derive from God. ^ 2 Cor. iv. lo.
3 Ps. xliv. 22. 4 Col. iii. 5. _ 5 Gal. v. 25.
6 2 Cor. iv. 13. 7 lb. 14, reading with R.V. marg. and
Vulg. against Text. Rec. and Pesh.
524
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
deprived of the blessedness arising from it.
For, ' let the wicked be taken away, so that he
shall not see the glory of the Lord ^.' For
although, when they shall hear the universal
proclamation of the promise, ' Awake, thou that
sleepest, and arise from the dead 9,' they shall
rise and shall come even to heaven, knocking
and saying, ' Open to us '° ; ' nevertheless the
Lord will reprove them, as those who put the
knowledge of Himself far from them, saying,
* I know you not.' But the holy Spirit cries
against them, ' The wicked shall be turned into
hell, even all the nations that forget God ".'
Now we say that the wicked are dead, but not
in an ascetic life opposed to sin; nor do
they, like the saints, bear about dying in their
bodies. But it is the soul which they bury in
sins and follies, drawing near to the dead, and
satisfying it with dead nourishment ; like young
eagles which, from high places, fly upon the
carcases of the dead, and which the law pro-
hibited, commanding figuratively, ' Thou shalt
not eat the eagle, nor any other bird that feed-
eth on a dead carcase " ; ' and it pronounced
unclean whatsoever eateth the dead. But these
kill the soul with lusts, and say nothing but,
' let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die '3.'
And the kind of fi uit those have who thus love
pleasures, he immediately describes, adding,
' And these things are revealed in the ears of
the Lord of Hosts, that this sin shall not be
forgiven you until ye die '*.' Yea, even while
they live they shall be ashamed, because they
consider their belly their lord ; and when
dead, they shall be tormented, because they
have made a boast of such a death. To this
effect also Paul bears witness, saying, ' Meats
for the belly, and the belly for meats ; but God
shall destroy both it and them 's.' And the
divine word declared before concerning them ;
' The death of sinners is evil, and those who
hate the righteous commit sin^^.' For bitter is
the worm, and grievous the darkness, which
wicked men inherit.
3. But the saints, and they who truly prac-
tise virtue, ' mortify their members which
are upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness,
passions, evil concupiscence ^7 j ' and, as the
result of this, are pure and without spot, con-
fiding in the promise of our Saviour, who said,
' Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall
see God '^' These, having become dead to
the world, and renounced the merchandise of
the world, gain an honourable death ; for,
' precious in the siglft of the Lord is the death
of His saints '9.' They are also able, preserv-
8 Is. xxvi. 10 (LXX.). 9 Eph. v. 14. 10 Matt. xxv. 11.
" Luke xiii. 25; Ps. ix. 17. 12 Lev. xi. 13. 13 Is. xxii. 13.
14 lb. 14. 15 I Cor. vi. 13. 16 Ps. xxxiv. 21. 17 Col.
iii. 5- '^ Matt. V. 8. '9 Ps. cxvi. 15.
ing the Apostohc likeness, to say, ' I am cruci-
fied with Christ, nevertheless I live ; yet not I,
but Christ liveth in me^".' For that is the true
life, which a man lives in Christ ; for although
they are dead to the world, yet they dwell as it
were in heaven, minding those things which
are above, as he who was a lover of such a
habitation said, ' While we walk on earth, our
dwelling is in heaven ^^' Now those who thus
live, and are partakers in such virtue, are alone
able to give glory to God, and this it is which
essentially constitutes a feast and a holiday ^
For the feast does not consist in pleasant inter-
course at meals, nor splendour ^ of clothing,
nor days of leisure, but in the acknowledgment
of God, and the offering of thanksgiving and of
praise to Him 3. Now this belongs to the
saints alone, who live in Christ ; for it is written,
' The dead shall not praise Thee, O Lord,
neither all those who go down into silence ;
but we who live will bless the Lord, from
henceforth even for ever l' So was it with
Hezekiah, who was delivered from death, and
therefore praised God, saying, ' Those who are
in hades cannot praise Thee ; the dead cannot
bless Thee ; but the living shall bless Thee, as
I also do 5.' For to praise and bless God
belongs to those only who live in Christ, and
by means of this they go up to the feast ; for
the Passover is not of the Gentiles, nor of those
who are yet Jews in the flesh ; but of those who
acknowledge the truth in Christ ^, as he declares
who was sent to proclaim such a feast ; ' Our
Passover, Christ, is sacrificed 7.'
4. Therefore, although wicked men press
forward to keep the feast, and as at a feast
praise God, and intrude into the Church of
the saints, yet God expostulates, saying to the
sinner, ' Why dost thou talk of My ordinances ? '
And the gentle Spirit rebukes them, saying,
' Praise is not comely in the mouth of a sinner^.'
Neither hath sin any place in common with the
praise of God; for the sinner has a mouth
speaking perverse things, as the Proverb saith,
'The mouth of the wicked answereth evil
things 9/ For how is it possible for us to
praise God with an impure mouth ? since things
which are contrary to each other cannot co-
exist. For what communion has righteousness
with iniquity? or, what fellowship is there be-
tween light and darkness ? So exclaims Paul, a
minister of the Gospel '°.
20 Gal. ii. 20.
21 The quotation is uncertain, but see ad Diognet. v. 9 ; cf.
also Phil. iii. 20, with which the passage in the text is coupled, and
ascribed to ' the Apostle,' in the probably spurious Homily on
Matt. xxi. 2 (Migne xxviii. p. 177).
I Cf. Letter iii. ' What else is the feast, but the service of
God ? ' ^ Cf. I Tim. ii. 9. sub Jin.
3 Cf. Letter vi. 3, note 14. 4 Ps. cxv. 17, 18. 5 Is. xxxviii.
18. * Vid. Lettervi. 2, note 10. 7 i Cor. v. 7. 8 Ps.
1. r6 ; Ecclus. XV. 9. These two texts are also quoted in juxta-
position, supr. p. 224. 9 Prov. xv. 28. '" 2 Cor. vi. 14.
LETTER VII. EASTER, 335.
.■^25
Thus it is that sinners, and all those who are
aliens from the Catholic Church, heretics, and
schismatics, since they are excluded from
glorifying (God) with the saints, cannot properly
even continue observers of the feast. But the
righteous man, although he appears dying to
the world, uses boldness of speech, saying, * I
shall not die, but live, and narrate all Thy mar-
vellous deeds".' For even God is not ashamed
to be called the God" of those who truly
mortify their members which are upon the
earth ^3^ but hve in Christ ; for He is the God
of the living, not of the dead. And He by His
living Word quick eneth all men, and gives
Him to be food and life to the saints ; as the
Lord declares, ' I am the bread of life '•♦.' The
Jews, because they were weak in perception,
and had not exercised the senses of the soul in
virtue, and did not comprehend this discourse
about bread, murmured against Him, because
He said, ' I am the bread which came down
from heaven, and giveth life unto men ^s.'
5. For sin has her own special bread, of her
death, and calling to those who are lovers of
pleasure and lack understanding, she saith,
' Touch with delight secret bread, and sweet
waters which are stolen '° ; ' for he who merely
touches them knows not that that which is born
from the earth perishes with her. For even
when the sinner thinks to find pleasure, the end
of that food is not pleasant, as the Wisdom of
God saith again, ' Bread of deceit is pleasant
to a man ; but afterwards his mouth shall be
filled with gravel ^7.' And, ' Honey droppeth
from the lips of a whorish woman, which for a
time is sweet to thy palate ; but at the last
thou shalt find it more bitter than gall, and
sharper than a two-edged sword '^.' Thus
then he eats and rejoices for a little time ; after-
wards he spurneth it when he hath removed his
soul afar. For the fool knoweth not that those
who depart far from God shall perish. And
besides, there is the restraint of the prophetic
admonition which says, * What hast thou to do
in the way of Egypt, to drink the waters of
Gihon ? And what hast thou to do in the way
of Asshur, to drink the waters of the rivers '9 ? '
And the Wisdom of God which loves mankind
forbids these things, crying, ' But depart
quickly, tarry not in the place, neither fix
thine eye upon it; for thus thou shalt pass
over strange waters, and depart quickly from
the strange river ^°.' She also calls them to
herself, ' For wisdom hath builded her house,
and supported it on seven pillars ; she hath
killed her sacrifices, and mingled her wine in
" Ps. cxviii. 17. " Cf. Heb. xi. i6.
«4 John vi. 48. IS lb. 51. »« Prov.
XX. 17. 18 lb. V. 3. '9 Jer. ii. 18.
LXX.
»3 Cf. Col. iii. 5.
ix. 17. '7 lb.
» Prov. ix. 18,
the goblets, and prepared her table; she hath
sent forth her servants, inviting to the goblet
with a loud proclamation, and saying, Whoso is
foolish, let him turn in to me ; and to them
that lack understanding she saith. Come, eat
of my bread, and drink of the wine I have
mingled for you ^' And what hope is there
instead of these things ? ' Forsake folly that ye
may live, and seek understanding that ye may
abide =*.' For the bread of Wisdom is living
fruit, as the Lord said ; ' I am the living bread
which came down from heaven : if any man
eat of this bread, he shall live for ever 3.' For
when Israel ate of the manna, which was indeed
pleasant and wonderful, yet he died, and he
who ate it did not in consequence live for
ever, but all that multitude died in the wilder-
ness. The Lord teaches, saying, I am the
bread of life : your fathers did eat manna in
the wilderness, and are dead. This is the
bread which came down from heaven, that a
man should eat thereof, and not die+,'
6. Now wicked men hunger for bread like
this, for effeminate souls will hunger ; but the
righteous alone, being prepared, shall be satis-
fied, saying, ' -I shall behold Thy face in right-
eousness ; I shall be satisfied when Thy glory
is seen by me s.' For. he who partakes of
divine bread always hungers with desire ; and
he who thus hungers has a never-failing gift, as
Wisdom promises, saying, ' The Lord will not
slay the righteous soul with famine.' He
promises too in the Psalms, * I will abundantly
bless her provision ; I will satisfy her poor with
bread.' We may also hear our Saviour saying,
' Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after
righteousness, for they shall be filled^.' Well
then do the saints and those who love the life
which is in Christ raise themselves to a longing
after this food. And one earnestly implores,
saying, ' As the hart panteth after the fountains
of waters, so pantetii my soul after Thee, O God !
My soul thirsteth for the living God, when shall
I come and see the face of God?' And
another; 'My God, my God, I seek Thee
early ; my soul thirsteth for Thee ; often does
my flesh, in a dry and pathless land, and with-
out water. So did I appear before Thee in
holiness to see Thy power and Thy glory?.'
7. Since these things are so, my brethren,
let us mortify our members which are on the
earth s, and be nourished with living bread,
by faith and love to God, knowing that without
faith it is impossible to be partakers of such
bread as this. For our Saviour, when He
called all men to him, and said, ' If any man
» Prov. ix. I — s»
4 lb. 4?— 51-
3 John vi. 51.
2 lb. 6.
S Ps. xvii. 13.
6 Prov. X.3 ; Matt. v. 6 ; Ps. cxxxii. 15, he notices the various
reading of the LXX. on the latter, Exp. in Ps. tn loc.
7 Ps. xlii. I ; Ixiii. i, 2. ^ Col. iii. 5.
526
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
thirst, let him [comej to Me and drink 9,'
immediately spoke of the faith without which a
man cannot receive such food ; ' He that be-
lieveth on Me, as the Scripture saith, out of
his belly shall flow rivers of living water *°.'
To this end He continually nourished His be-
lieving disciples with His words, and gave
them life by the nearness of His divinity, but
to the Canaanitish woman, because she was
not yet a believer, He deigned not even a
reply, although she stood greatly in need of
food from Him. He did this not from scorn,
far from it (for the Lord is loving to men and
good, and on that account He went into the
coasts of Tyre and Sidon) ; but because of her
unbelief, and because she was of those who
had not the word. And He did it righteously,
my brethren ; for there would have been no-
thing gained by her offering her supplication
before believing, but by her faith she would
support her petition ; ' For He that cometh to
God, must first believe that He is, and that He
is a rewarder of them that seek Him ; ' and
that ' without faith it is impossible for a man
to please Him ".' This Paul teaches. Now
that she was hitherto an unbeliever, one of the
profane, He shews, saying, 'It is not meet to
take the children's bread, and to cast it to
dogs ".' She then, being convinced by the
power of the word, and having changed her
ways, also gained faith ; for the Lord no longer
spoke to her as a dog, but conversed with her
as a human being, saying, ' O woman, great is
thy faith ^3 1' As therefore she beheved. He
forthwith granted to her the fruit of faith, and
said, ' Be it to thee as thou desirest. And her
daughter was healed in the self-same hour.'
8. For the righteous man, being nurtured in
faith and knowledge, and the observance of
divine precepts, has his soul always in health.
Wherefore it is commanded to ' receive to
ourselves him who is weak in the faith ^4,' and
to nourish him, even if he is not yet able to
eat bread, but herbs, 'for he that is weak
eateth herbs.' For even the Corinthians were
not able to partake of such bread, being yet
babes, and like babes they drank milk. ' For
every one that partaketh of milk is unskilful in
the word of righteousness ^5^' according to the
words of that divine man. The Apostle
exhorts his beloved son Timothy, in his first
Epistle, ' to be nourished with the word of
faith, and the good doctrine whereto he had
attained.' And in the second, ' Preserve thou
the form of sound words which thou hast heard
of me, in faith and love which are in Christ
Jesus ^^.' And not only here, my brethren, is
9 John vii. 37.
" Matt. XV. 26.
'5 I Cor. iii. i ; Heb. v. 13.
»o lb. 38.
13 lb. 28.
" Heb. xi. 6.
'4 Rom. xiv. ta
»6 I Tim. iv. 6 ; 2 Tim. i. 13.
this bread the food of the righteous, neither
are the saints on earth alone nourished by
such bread and such blood ; but we also eat
them in heaven, for the Lord is the food even
of the exalted spirits, and the angels, and He
is the joy of all the heavenly host '7. And to
all He is everything, and He has pity upon all
according to His loving-kindness. Already hath
the Lord given us angels' food '^, and He
promises to those who continue with Him in
His trials, saying, ' And I promise to you a
kingdom, as My Father hath promised to Me ;
that ye shall eat and drink at My table in My
kingdom, and sit on twelve thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel '.' O what a ban-
quet is this, my brethren, and how great is the
harmony and gladness of those who eat at this
heavenly table ! For they delight themselves
not with that food which is cast out, but with
that which produces life everlasting. Who
then shall be deemed worthy of that assembly ?
Who is so blessed as to be called, and ac-
counted worthy of that divine feast? Truly,
' blessed is he who shall eat bread in Thy
kingdom ^'
9. Now he who has been counted worthy of
the heavenly calling, and by this calling has
been sanctified, if he grow negligent in it,
although washed becomes defiled : ' counting
the blood of the covenant by which he was
sanctified a profane thing, and despising the
Spirit of grace,' he hears the words, 'Friend,
how earnest thou in hither, not having wedding
garments?' For the banquet of the saints
is spotless and pure ; ' for many are called,
but few chosen 3/ Judas to wit, though he
came to the supper, because he despised it
went out from the presence of the Lord, and
having abandoned his Life'^, hanged himself.
But the disciples who continued with the Re-
deemer shared in the happiness of the feast.
And that young man who went into a far
country, and there wasted his substance, living
in dissipation, if he receive a desire for this
divine feast, and, coming to himself, shall say,
' How many hired servants of my father have
bread to spare, while I perish here with
hunger !' and shall next arise and come to his
father, and confess to him, saying, ' I have
sinned against heaven and before thee, and am
not worthy to be called thy son ; make me as
one of thy hired servants sj' — when he shall
thus confess, then he shall be counted worthy
of more than he prayed for. For the father
does not receive him as a hired servant,
neither does he look upon him as a stranger,
but he kisses him as a son, he brings him
I
«7 Cf. Letter i. 6. «« Cf. Ps. Ixxviii. 25. ' Luke
xxii. 29, 30. * lb. xiv. 15. 3 Heb. x. 29; Matt. xxii. 12;
lb. 14. 't Cf. Col. iii. 4. 5 Luke xv. 17.
LETTER
EASTER, 338.
i27
back to life as from the dead, and counts him
worthy of the divine feast, and gives him his
former and precious robe. So that, on this
account, there is singing and gladness in the
paternal home.
10. For this is the work of the Father's
loving-kindness and goodness, that not only
should He make him alive from the dead, but
that He should render His grace illustrious
through the Spirit. Therefore, instead of cor-
ruption, He clothes him with an incorruptible
garment; instead of hunger. He kills the fatted
calf ; instead of far journeys, [the Father]
watched for his return, providing shoes for his
feet ; and, what is most wonderful, placed a
divine signet-ring upon his hand; whilst by all
these things He begat him afresh in the image
of the glory of Christ. These are the gracious
gifts of the Father, by which the Lord honours
and nourishes those who abide with Him, and
also those who return to Him and repent.
For He promises, saying, * I am the bread of
life ; he that cometh unto Me shall not hunger,
and he that believeth on Mc shall never
thirst ^' [We too shall be counted worthy of
these things, if at all times we cleave to our
Saviour, and if we are pure, not only in these
six days of Easter?, but consider the whole
course of our life as a feast ^, and continue
near and do not go far off, saying to Him,
' Thou hast the words of eternal life, and
whither shall we go 9?' Let those of us who
are far off return, confessing our iniquities, and
having nothing against any man, but by the
spirit mortifying the deeds of the body ^°. For
thus, having first nourished the soul here, we
shall partake with angels at that heavenly
and spiritual table; not knocking and being
repulsed like those five foohsh virgins ", but
entering with the Lord, like those who were
wise and loved the bridegroom ; and shewing
the dying of Jesus in our bodies '% we shall
receive life and the kingdom from Him.
11. We begin the fast of forty days on the
twenty-third of Mechir (Feb. 17), and the holy
fast of the blessed feast on the twenty-eighth
of Phamenoth (Mar, 24) ; and having joined
to these six days after them, in fastings and
watchings, as each one is able, let us rest on
the third of the month Pharmuthi (Mar. 29),
on the evening of the seventh day. Also that
day which is holy and blessed in everything,
which possesses the name of Christ, namely the
6 John vi. 35. , , , .
7 Vid. Suicer. T^es. in. voc. a.-noKp(.u><;, and the notes of
Valesius on P^useb. Orat. in laud. Constant, ch. ix. With us,
Easter-week includes the six dayi/oliowinx Easter-Sunday ; with
the Greeks, the e/Sfiofids twi' ■kcutx'^v was applied to the preceding
six days, as here. ^ Vid. siipr. Letters 5. i, 7, 3. init.
9 John vi. 68. »> Rom. viii. 13. »' Matt. xxv. 1—12.
" f Cor. iv. 10.
Lord's day '3^ having risen upon us on the fourth
of Pharmuthi (Mar. 30), let us afterwards keep
the holy feast of Pentecost. Let us at all
times worship the Father in Christ, through
Whom to Him and with Him be glory and
dominion by the Holy Ghost for ever and
ever. Amen. All the brethren who are with
me salute you : salute one another with a holy
kiss.
There is no eighth or ninth, for he did not
send them, for the reason before mentioned ^
Here endeth the seventh Festal Letter of
holy Athanasius the Patriarch.
LETTER X.
For 338.
Coss. Ursus and Polemius ; Free/, the same
Theodortis, of HeliopoHs, and of the Catho-
lics'^. After him, for the second year, Phi-
lagrius ; Indict, xi ; Easter- day, vii Kal.
Ap.'i XXX Phamenoth; Moon 185-/ .^ra
Dioclet. 54.
♦Although I have travelled all this dis-
tance from you, my brethren, I have not
forgotten the custom which obtains among
you, which has been delivered to us by the
fathers 5, so as to be silent without notifying
to you the time of the annual holy feast, and
the day for its celebration. For although I
have been hindered by those afflictions of
which you have doubtless heard, and severe
trials have been laid upon me, and a great
distance has separated us ; while the enemies
of the truth have followed our tracks, laying
snares to discover a letter from us, so that
by their accusations, they might add to the
pain of our wounds ; yet the Lord, strengthen-
ing and comforting us in our afflictions, we
have not feared, even when held fast in the
midst of such machinations and conspiracies, to
indicate and make known to you our saving
Easter-feast, even from the ends of the earth.
Also when I wrote to the presbyters of Alex-
andria, I urged that these letters might be
sent to you through their instiumentality, al-
'3 (cvpiiiw/iios — KupiaKr; L. Vid. Suicer Thes. sub. voc. Kvpiouri).
Expos, in Fsalin. cwii. 24.
I See the Index. This notice suggests that the present col-
lection of letters has undergone a recension since its union with
the Index.
=* The text is difficult ; possibly the Syriac translator is re-
sponsible for the difficulty. But we know iVom Ath. {siipr. p. 273)
that the reapno ntment 01 Pliilagrius was in the e\press interest of
the Arians : it i:;, therefore, probable that Theodorus was not un-
favourable to Athanasius. See Prolegg. ch. ii. § 6(1), and Sievers,
pp. loi, 102.
3 In the Chron. Pasch. torn. ii. p. soa, Easter-day is wrongly
given as falling on viii. Kal. Ap.
4 See Prolegg. ch. v. § 3 b. The letter may have been finished
(see §§ 3, 11) after Ath. had returned home, but the language of § i
seems to be applicable only to his residence at Treveri, and § 11
may be reconciled to this supposition. In this case (§ i sub.finJ)
it was probably begun as early as the Easter 01 337 ; cf. Letters
17 and 18. S See above, p. 50CX
528
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
though I knew the fear imposed on them by
the adversaries. Still, I exhorted them to be
mindful of the apostolic boldness of speech,
and to say, ' Nothing separates us from the
love of Christ ; neither affliction, nor distress,
nor persecution, nor famine, nor nakedness,
nor peril, nor sword^.' Thus, keeping the
feast myself, I was desirous that you also, my
beloved, should keep it ; and being conscious
that an announcement like this is due from
me, I have not delayed to discharge this duty,
fearing to be condemned by the Apostolic
counsel ; ' Render to every man his due 7.'
2. While I then committed all my affairs to
God, I was anxious to celebrate the feast with
you, not taking into account the distance
between us. For although place separate
us, yet the Lord the Giver of the feast, and
Who is Himself our feast ^, Who is also the
Bestow er of the Spirit 9, brings us together in
mind, in harmony, and in the bond of peace'°.
For when we mind and think the same things,
and offer up the same prayers on behalf of
each other, no place can separate us, but the
Lord gathers and unites us together. For if
He promises, that * when two or three are
gathered together in His name. He is in
the midst of them",' it is plain that being in
the midst of those who in every place are
gathered together. He unites them, and re-
ceives the prayers of all of them, as if they
were near, and listens to all of them, a§ they
cry out the same Amen". I have '3 borne
affliction like this, and all those trials which I
mentioned, my brethren, when I wrote to you.
3. And that we may not distress you at
all, I would now (only) briefly remind you
of these things, because it is not becoming
in a man to forget, when more at ease, the
pains he experienced in tribulation ; lest, like
an unthankful and forgetful person, he should
be excluded from the divine assembly. For
at no time should a man freely praise God,
more than when he has passed through afflic-
tions ; nor, again, should he at any time give
thanks more than when he finds rest from
toil and temptations. As Hezekiah, when the
Assyrians perished, praised the Lord, and
gave thanks, saying, ' The Lord is my salva-
tion ^4; and I will not cease to bless Thee
with harp all the days of my life, before the
6 Rom. viii. 35. 7 Rom. xiii. 7 ; cf. Ep. iii. init.
8 Cf. I Cor. V. 7. 9 Cf. Orat. i. 50 ; ii. 18 ; Luke xi. 13.
»° Cf. Eph. iv. 3. " Matt, xviii. 20. " Cf. Ajfol. Const. 16.
13 Thus far Athan. has been referring to the circumstances
attending his exile for the last two years. The principal subject
of the remaining part consists of the duty incumbent on us to
praise and thank God for deliverance from affliction, and to ex-
ercise forgiveness towards our enemies. He several times (e.g.
§§ 3, 10) speaks of his restoration to the Church of Alexandria.
U The Syriac translator must have found in the Greek copy
the reading of the Codex Alex. Kvpie — the rendering of ' Jehovah/
not that of the Vatican text. ©€«.
house of the Lord's.' And those valiant and
blessed three who were tried in Babylon,
Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, when they
were in safety and the fire became to them as
dew, gave thanks, praising and saying words
of glory to God'^.' I .too like them have
written, my brethren, having these things in
mind ; for even in our time, God hath made
possible those things which are impossible to
men. And those things which could not be
accomplished by man, the Lord has shewn to
be easy of accomplishment, by bringing us to
you. For He does not give us as a prey to
those who seek to swallow us up. For it is
not so much us, as the Church, and the faith
and godliness which they planned to over-
whelm with wickedness.
4. But God, who is good, multiplied His
loving-kindness towards us, not only when He
granted the common salvation of us all through
His Word, but now also, when enemies
have persecuted us, and have sought to seize
upon us. As the blessed Paul saith in a cer-
tain place, when describing the incomprehen-
sible riches of Christ : * But God, being rich
in mercy, for the great love wherewith He
loved us, even when we were dead in follies
and sins, quickened us with Christ'?.' For
the might of man and of all creatures, is weak
and poor ; but the Might which is above man,
and uncreated, is rich and incomprehensible,
and has no beginning, but is eternal. He
does not then possess one method only of
healing, but being rich. He works in divers
manners for our salvation by means of His
Word, Who is not restricted or hindered in
His dealings towards us j but since He is
rich and manifold, He varies Himself accord-
ing to the individual capacity of each soul.
For He is the Word and the Power and the
Wisdom of God, as Solomon testifies con-
cerning Wisdom, that ' being one, it can do
all things, and remaining in itself, it maketh
all things new ; and passing upon holy souls,
fashioneth the friends of God and the pro-
phets'^.' To those then who have not yet
attained to the perfect way He becomes like
a sheep giving milk, and this was administered
by Paul : ' I have fed you with milk, not with
meat '9.' To those who have advanced be-
yond the full stature of childhood, but still
are weak as regards perfection, He is their
food, according to their capacity, being again
administered by Paul^°, ' Let him that is weak
IS Is. xxxviii. 20. '* ' Song of Three Children,' 25—28.
17 Eph. ii. 4, 5. »8 Wisd. vii. 27 ; cf. Ep. i. 19 i Cor. iii. 3.
30 Rom. xiv. 2. The sense in the last few lines, and in those
that follow, is clear, though the construction appears somewhat
obscure. Milks, herbs, and meat are severally mentioned in
connection with the different advances made in the Christian
course. The translation of Larsow is less satisfactory.
LETTER X. EASTER, 338.
529
eat herbs.' But as soon as ever a man begins
to walk in the perfect way, he is no longer fed
with the things before mentioned, but he has
the Word for bread, and flesh for food, for it
is written, ' Strong meat is for those who are
of full age, for those who, by reason of their
capacity, have their senses exercised ^' And
further, when the word is sown it does not
yield a uniform produce of fruit in this human
life, but one various and rich ; for it bringeth
forth, some an hundred, and some sixty, and
some thirty % as the Saviour teaches— that
Sower of grace, and Bestower of the Spirit 3.
And this is no doubtful matter, nor one that
admits no confirmation ; but it is in our
power to behold the field which is sown by
Him ; for in the Church the word is manifold
and the produce '^ rich. Not with virgins alone
is such a field adorned ; nor with monks alone,
but also with honourable matrimony and the
chastity of each one. For in sowing, He did
not compel the will beyond the power. Nor is
mercy confined to the perfect, but it is sent
down also among those who occupy the middle
and the third ranks, so that He might rescue
all men generally to salvation. To this intent
He hath prepared many mansions^ with the
Father, so that although the dwelling-place is
various in proportion to the advance in moral
attainment, yet all of us are within the wall,
and all of us enter within the same fence, the
adversary being cast out, and all his host
expelled thence. For apart from light there
is darkness, and apart from blessing there is
a curse, the devil also is apart from the
saints, and sin far from virtue. Therefore the
Gospel rebukes Satan, saying, ' Get thee behind
Me, Satan ^.' But us it calls to itself, saying,
' Enter ye in at the strait gate.' And again,
' Come, blessed of My Father, inherit the
kingdom which is prepared for you 7.' So also
the Spirit cried aforetiniQ in the Psalms, saying,
'Enter into His gates with psalms^.' For
through virtue a man enters in unto God, as
Moses did into the thick cloud where God was.
But through vice a man goes out from the
presence of the Lord ; as Cain 9 when he had
slain his brother, went out, as far as his will
was concerned, from before the face of God ;
and the Psalmist enters, saying, 'And I will
go in to the altar of God, even to the God that
delighteth my youth ^°.' But of the devil the
» Heb. V. 14.
a Matt. xiii. 8. In the Syriac text, as published by Mr. Cureton,
as well as in the German translation by Larsow, there is a hiatus
here, the next two or three pages, as far as the words ' He wept,
(§ 5 init.) being wanting. Two more leaves were afterwards
discovered ■ among the fragments in the British Museum by the
learned Editor. One of them belongs to this part ; the other to
the eleventh Letter. 3 Vid. note 9, sujir.
- Syr. ' virtu.*,' a letter (rish) having been inserted by mistake.
5 )ohn xiv. a ^ Matt. iv. 10. 7 Matt. vii. 13 ; xxv. 34.
8 "Ps. c. 4. 9 Gen. iv. 16 ; Exod. xix. 9. " Ps. xliu. 4.
VOL. IV. M
Scripture beareth witness, that the devil went
out from before God, and smote Job " with
sore boils. For this is the characteristic of
those who go out from before God — to smite
and to injure the men of God. And this is
the characteristic of those who fall away from
the faith — to injure and persecute the faithful.
The saints on the other hand, take such to
themselves and look upon them as friends ;
as also the blessed David, using openness
of speech, says, ' Mine eyes are on the faithful
of the earth, that they may dwell with me.'
But those that are weak in the faith '^, Paul
urges that we should especially take to our-
selves. For virtue is philanthropic '3^ just as
in men of an opposite character, sin is misan-
thropic. So Saul, being a sinner, persecuted
David, whereas David, though he had a good
opportunity, did not kill Saul. Esau too per-
secuted Jacob, while Jacob overcame his
wickedness by meekness. -And those eleven
sold Joseph, but Joseph, in his loving-kind-
ness, had pity on them.
5. But what need we many words ? Our Lord
and Saviour, when He was persecuted by the
Pharisees, wept for their destruction. He was
injured, but He threatened'* not ; not when He
was afflicted, not even when He was killed. But
He grieved for those who dared to do such
things. He, the Saviour, suffered for man, but
they despised and cast from them life, and
light, and grace. All these were theirs through
that Saviour Who suffered in our stead. And
verily for their darkness and blindness, He
wept. For if they had understood the things
which are written in the Psalms, they would
not have been so vainly daring against the
Saviour, the Spirit having said, 'Why do the
heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain
thing? ' And if they had considered the pro-
phecy of Moses, they would not have hanged
Him Who was their Life 'S. And if they had
examined with their understanding the things
which were written, they would not have care-
fully fulfilled the prophecies which were against
themselves, so as for their city to be now
desolate, grace taken from them, and they
themselves without the law, being no longer
called children, but strangers. For thus in the
Psalms was it before declared, saying, 'The
strange children have acted falsely by Me.'
And by Isaiah the prophet ; ' I have begotten
and brought up children, and they have re-
jected Me '^.' And they are no longer named
the people of God, and a holy nation, but
" Job ii. 7. In the MS. Jesus is written by mistake lor Jo6.
" Ps. ci. 6 ; Rom. xiv. i. »3 Cf. Letter xi. sub. init.
14 The Syriac is ' was persecuted '—which supplies no good
sense. '5 Ps. ii. i ; DeuU xxviii. 66.
»6 Ps. xviii. 45 ; Is- >• *•
m
530
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
rulers of Sodom, and people of Gomorrah ;
having exceeded in this even the iniquity of
the Sodomites, as the prophet also saith,
' Sodom is justified before thee *7.' For the
Sodomites raved against angels, but these
against the Lord and God and King of all,
and these dared to slay the Lord of angels, not
knowing that Christ, who was slain by them,
liveth. But those Jews who had conspired
against .the Lord died, having rejoiced a very
little in these temporal things, and having fallen
away from those which are eternal. They were
ignorant of this — that the immortal promise
has not respect to temporal enjoyment, but to
the hope of those things which are everlasting.
For through many tribulations, and labours,
and sorrows, the saint enters into the kingdom
of heaven ; but when he arrives where sorrow,
and distress, and sighing, shall flee away, he
shall thenceforward enjoy rest; as Job, who,
when tried here, was afterwards the familiar
friend of the Lord. But the lover of pleasures,
rejoicing for a little while, afterwards passes a
sorrowful life; like Esau, who had temporal
food, but afterwards was condemned thereby.
6, We may take as a type of this distinction,
the departure of the children of Israel and the
Egyptians from Egypt. For the Egyptians,
rejoicing a little while in their injustice against
Israel, when they went forth, were all drowned
in the deep ; but the people of God, being for
a time smitten and injured, by the conduct of
the taskmasters, when they came out of Egypt,
passed through the sea unharmed, and walked
in the wilderness as an inhabited place. For
although the place was unfrequented by man
and desolate, yet, through the gracious gift of
the law, and through converse with angels, it
was no longer desert, but far more than an
inhabited country. As also Elisha ', when
he thought he was alone in the wilderness, was
with companies of angels ; so in this case,
though the people were at first afflicted and in
the wilderness, yet those who remained faithful
afterwards entered the land of promise. In
like manner those who suffer temporal afflic-
tions here, finally having endured, attain com-
fort, while those who here persecute are trodden
under foot, and have no good end. For even
the rich man", as the Gospel affirms, having
indulged in pleasure here for a little while,
suffered hunger there, and having drunk largely
here, he there thirsted exceedingly. But
Lazarus, after being afflicted in worldly things,
found rest in heaven, and having hungered for
bread ground from corn, he was there satisfied
»7 E?ek. xri. 48, cf. Lam. iv. 6.
' The reference is to 2 Kings vi. 13 — 17, though 'the wilder-
ness' agt'.es better with the history of Elijah, i Kings xix. 4 — 8.
' Luke xvi. X9.
with that which is better than manna, even the
Lord who came down and said, ' I am the
bread which came down from heaven, and
giveth life to mankind 3.'
7. Oh ! my dearly beloved, if we shall gam
comfort from afflictions, if rest from labours, if
health after sickness, if from death immortality,
it is not right to be distressed by the temporal
ills that lay hold on mankind. It does not be-
come us to be agitated because of the trials
which befall us. It is not right to fear if the
gang that contended with Christ, should con-
spire against godliness ; but we should the more
please God through these things, and should
consider such matters as the probation and
exercise of a virtuous life. For how shall
patience be looked for, if there be not pre-
viously labours and sorrows? Or how can
fortitude be tested with no assault from
enemies? Or how shall magnanimity be ex-
hibited, unless after contumely and injus-
tice ? Or how can long-suffering be proved,
unless there has first been the calumny of
Antichrist 4? And, finally, how can a man
behold virtue with his eyes, unless the ini-
quity of the very wicked has previously
appeared? Thus even our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ comes before us, when He
would shew men how to suffer, Who when He
was smitten bore it patiently, being reviled
He reviled not again, when He suffered He
threatened not, but He gave His back to the
smiters, and His cheeks to bufifetings, and
turned not His face from spitting s ; and at
last, was willingly led to death, that we might
behold in Him the image of all that is virtuous
and immortal, and that we, conducting our-
selves after these examples, might truly tread
on serpents and scorpions, and on all the power
of the enemy ^.
8. Thus too Paul, while he conducted him-
self after the example of the Lord, exhorted
us, saying, ' Be ye followers of me, as I also am
of Christ 7.' In this way he prevailed against
all the divisions of the devil, writing, ' I am
persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor
angels, nor principahties, nor things present,
nor things to come, nor powers, nor height,
nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able
to separate us from the love of God which is in
Jesus Christl' For the enemy draws near to
us in afflictions, and trials, and labours, using
every endeavour to ruin us. But the man who
is in Christ, combating those things that are
contrary, and opposing wrath by long-suffering,
contumely by meekness, and vice by virtue,
obtains the victory, and exclaims, ' I can do all
3 John vi. 51.
5 I Pet. ii. 23 ;
et Critc. 19.
4 i.e,
Isa. 1. 6. .
7 I Cor. xL
Arians.
See Index to this vol. s.v.
6 Cf. Pseudo-Ath. de Pass.
8 Rom. viii. 38, 39.
LETTER X. EASTER, 338.
531
things through Christ Who strengtheneth me ; '
and, ' In all these things we are conquerors
through Christ Who loved us 9.' This is the
grace of the Lord, and these are the Lord's
means of restoration for the children of men.
For He suffered to prepare freedom from suffer-
ing for those who suffer in Him, He descended
that He might raise us up, He took on Him
the trial of being born, that we might love Him
Who is unbegotten, He went down to corruj)-
tion, that corruption might put on immortality,
He became weak for us, that we might rise
with power. He descended to death, tnat He
might bestow on us immortality, and give Ufa
to the dead. Finally, He became man, that
we who die as men might live again, and that
death should no more reign over us; for the
Apostolic word proclaims, 'Death shall not
have the dominion over us '°.'
9. Now because they did not thus consider
these matters, the Ario-maniacs ", being op-
ponents of Christ, and heretics, smite Him who
is their Helper with their tongue, and blas-
pheme Him who set [them] free, and hold all
manner of different opinions against the Sa-
viour. Because of His coming down, which
was on behalf of man, they have denied His
essential Godhead ; and seeing that He came
forth from the Virgin, they doubt His being
truly the Son of God, and considering Him
as become incarnate in time, they deny His
eternity; and, looking upon Him as having
suffered for us, they do not believe in Him as
the incorruptible Son from the incorruptible
Father. And finally, because He endured
for our sakes, they deny the things which
concern His essential eternity; allowing the
deed of the unthankful, these despise the
Saviour, and offer Him insult instead of ac-
knowledging His grace. To them may these
words justly be addressed: Oh! unthankful
opponent of Christ, altogether wicked, and
the slayer of his Lord, mentally blind, and a
Jew in his mind, hadst thou understood the
Scriptures, and listened to the saints, who
said, ' Cause Thy face to shine, and we shall
be saved ;' or again, 'Send out Thy light and
Thy truth";'— then wouldest thou have known
that the Lord did not descend for His own
sake, but for ours ; and for this reason, thou
wouldest the more have admired His loving-
kindness. And hadst thou considered what
the Father is, and what the Son, thou
wouldest not have blasphemed the Son, as
of a mutable nature '3, And hadst thou un-
derstood His work of loving-kindness towards
us, thou wouldest not have alienated the Son
9 Phil. iv. 13 ; Rom. viii. 37. '° Rom. vi. 9, 14, cf. de Pass.
ttCruc. II. II The Syriac mistranslates ^rzKi a».T!iT/a»(?;f(.\j-.
" Ps. xliii. 3, Ixxx. 7. '3 Cf. Orat. i. 35 ; ii. 6, and notes
there.
from the Father, nor have looked u;;on Him as
a stranger '4^ Who reconciled us to His Father.
I know these [words] are grievous, not only
to those who dispute with Christ "s^ but also
to the schismatics ; for they are united to-
gether, as men of kindred feelings. Foi they
have learned to rend the seamless coat'^ of
God : they think it not strange to divide the
indivisible Son from the Father '?.
10. I know indeed, that when these things
are spoken, they will '^nash their teeth upon
us, with the devil who stirs them up, since
they are troubled by the declaration of the
true glory concerning the Redeemer. But the
Lord, Who always has scoffed at the devil,
does the same even now, saying, ' I am in the
Father, and the Father in Me 'X' This is the
Lord, Who is manifested in the Father, and in
Whom also the Father is manifested ; Who,
being truly the Son of the Father, at last
became incarnate for our sakes, that He might
offer Himself to the Father in our stead, and
redeem us through His oblation and sacrifice.
This is He Who once brought the people of
old time out of Egypt; but Who afterwards
redeemed all of us, or rather the whole race of
men, from death, and brought them up from
the grave. This is He Who in old time was
sacrificed as a lamb, He being signified in the
lamb ; but Who afterwards was slain for us,
for ' Christ our Passover is sacrificed '9.' This
is He Who delivered us from the snare of the
hunters, from the opponents of Christ, I say,
and from the schismatics, and again rescued
us His Church. And because we were then
victims of deceit, He has now delivered us
by His own self.
1 1. What then is our duty, my brethren, for
the sake of these things, but to praise and
give thanks to God, the King of all ? And let
us first exclaim in the words of the Psalms,
' Blessed be the Lord, Who hath not given us
over as a prey to their teeth ^°.' Let us keen
the feast in that way which He hath dedi-
cated for us unto salvation — the holy day ot
Easter — so that we may celebrate the tea:.:
which is in heaven with the angels. Thus
anciently, the people of the Jews, when they
came out of affliction into a state of ease, kept
the feast, singing a song of praise for their
victory. So also the people in the time of
Esther, because they were delivered from the
edict of death, kept a feast to the Lord ^',
reckoning it a feast, returning thanks to the
M Ct. supr. p. 70. '5 i.e. the Arians.
»6 Syr. xcTwi/. The words translated 'rend' and 'seamless'
are cognate in the Syriac, and answer to <r\iitiv and its deriva>
lives.
17 The Arians were thence called AiaTO/ii-oi. Vid. Damasceu.
de hieiesib. apud Cotel. eccles. Gr. momtm. p. 298.
iB Johnxiv. II. '9 I Cor. V. 7. =0 Ps. cxxiv. 6,
ai Ct". Esth. iii. 9 ; ix. ai ; Letter \y. p. 3a.
M m 2
532
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
Lord, and praising Him for having changed
their condition. Therefore let us, performing
our vows to the Lord, and confessing our sins,
keep the feast to the Lord, in conversation,
moral conduct, and manner of life; praising
our Lord, Who hath chastened us a little, but
hath not utterly failed nor forsaken us, nor
altogether kept silence from us. For if, hav-
ing brought us out of the deceitful and famous
Egypt of the opponents of Christ, He hath
caused us to pass through many trials and
afflictions, as it were in the wilderness, to His
holy Church, so that from hence, according to
custom, we can send to you, as well as receive
letters from you ; on this account especially
I both give thanks to God myself, and exhort
you to thank Him with me and on my behalf,
this being the Apostolic custom, which these op-
ponents of Christ, and the schismatics, wished
to put an end to, and to break off. The Lord
did not permit it, but both renewed and pre-
served that which was ordained by Him through
the Apostle, so that we may keep the feast
together, and together keep holy-day, according
to the tradition and commandment of the
fathers.
12. We begin the fast of forty days on the
nineteenth of the month Mechir (Feb. 13);
and the holy Easter-fast on the twenty-fourth
of the month Phamenoth (Mar. 20). We cease
from the fast on the twenty-ninth of the month
Phamenoth (Mar. 25), late in the evening of
the seventh day. And we thus keep the feast
on the first day of the week which dawns on
the thirtieth of the month Phamenoth (Mar.
26) ; from which, to Pentecost, we keep holy-
day, through seven weeks, one after the other.
For when we have first meditated properly on
these things, we shall attain to be counted
worthy of those which are eternal, through
Christ Jesus our Lord, through Whom to the
Father be glory and dominion for ever and
ever. Amen. Greet one another with a holy
kiss, remembering us in your holy prayers.
All the brethren who are with me salute you,
at all times remembering you. And I pray
that ye may have health in the Lord, my be-
loved brethren, whom we love above all.
Here endeth the tenth Letter of holy Atha-
nasius.
LETTER XL
For 339.
Coss. Constantius Augustus II, Constans I;
Prcefect, Philagrius the Cappadocian, for the
second ti?ne ; Indict, xii; Easter-day xvii
Kal. Mai, xx Pharmuthi ; ^ra Dioclet. 55.
The blessed Paul, being girt about with
every virtue \ and called faithful of the Lord —
for he was conscious of nothing in himself but
what was a virtue and a praise ^, or what was
in harmony with love and godliness — clave to
these things more and more, and was carried
up even to heavenly places, and was borne to
Paradise 3 ; to the end that, as he surpassed
the conversation of men, he should be exalted
above men. And when he descended, he
preached to every man ; ' We know in part, and
we prophesy in part ; here I know in part ; but
then shall I know even as also I am known '^.'
For, in truth, he was known to those saints
who are in heaven, as their fellow-citizen s.
And in relation to all that is future and perfect,
the things known by him here were in part ;
but with respect to those things which were
committed and entrusted to him by the Lord,
he was perfect ; as he said, ' We who are
perfect, should be thus minded ^.' For as the
Gospel of Christ is the fulfilment and accom-
plishment of the ministration which was sup-
plied by the law of Israel, so future things will
be the accomplishment of such as now exist,
the Gospel being then fulfilled, and the faithful
receiving those things which, not seeing now,
they yet hope for, as Paul saith ; ' For what a
man seeth, why doth he also hope for? But if
we hope for those things we see [not], we then
by patience wait for them ?.' Since then that
blessed man was of such a character, and
apostolic grace was committed to him, he
wrote, wishing ' that all men should be as he
was ^.' For virtue is philanthropic 9, and great
is the company of the kingdom of heaven, for
thousands of thousands and myriads of myriads
there serve the Lord. And though a man
enters it through a strait and narrow way,
yet having entered, he beholds immeasurable
space, and a place greater than any other, as
they declare, who were eye-witnesses and heirs
of these things. ' Thou didst place afflictions
before us.' Biit afterwards, having related
their afflictions, they say, ' Thou broughtest us
forth into a wide place ; ' and again, ' In afflic-
tion Thou hast enlarged us '°.' For truly, my
brethren, the course of the saints here is strait-
ened ; since they either toil painfully through
longing for those things which are to come, as
he who said, * Woe is me that my pilgrimage is
prolonged ";' or they are distressed and spent
for the salvation of other men, as Paul wrote to
the Corinthians, saying, ' Lest, when I come to
you, God should humble me, and I should
bewail many of those who have sinned already,
and not repented for the uncleanness and for-
» Cf. Eph. yi. 14.
4 I Cor. xiii. 9, 12.
7 Rom. viii. 24, 25.
JO P>. Ixvi. ji, 12: IV.
» Cf. I Cor. iv. 4. 3 2 Cor. xii. 4.
5 Cf. Eph. ii. 19. 6 Phil. iii. 13.
8 I Cor. vii. 7. 9 Cf. Letter 10, $4.
I. " lb. cxx. 5, LXX.
f
LETTER XL EASTER, 339.
533
nication and lasciviousness which they have
committed ".' As Samuel bewailed the de-
struction of Saul, and Jeremiah wept for the
captivity of the people. But after this afflic-
tion, and sorrow, and sighing, when they depart
from this world, a certain divine gladness, and
pleasure, and exultation receives them, from
which misery and sorrow, and sighing, flee
away.
2. Since we are thus circumstanced, my
brethren, let us never loiter in the path of
virtue ; for hereto he counsels us, saying,
'Be ye followers of me, as I also am of
Christ '3.' For he gave this advice not to the
Corinthians only, since he was not their Apostle
only, but being 'a teacher of the Gentiles in
faith and verity '-*,' he admonished us all
through them ; and in short, the things he
wrote to each particular person are command-
ments common to all men ^s. On this account,
in writing to different people, some he exhorted,
as, for instance, in the Epistles to the Romans,
and the Ephesians, and Philemon. Some he
reproved, and was indignant with them, as in
the case of the Corinthians and Galatians. To
some he gave advice, as to the Colossians and
Thessalonians. The Philippians he approved
of, and rejoiced in them. The Hebrews he
taught that the law was a shadow to them ^^.
But to his elect sons, Timothy and Titus, when
they were near, he gave instruction ; when far
away, he put them in remembrance. For he
was all things to all men ; and being himself a
perfect man, he adapted his teaching to the
need of every one, so that by all means he
might rescue some of them. Therefore his
word was not without fruit ; but in every place
it is planted and productive even to this day.
3. And wherefore, my beloved? For it is
right that we should search into the apos-
tohc mind. Not only in the beginning of
the Epistles, but towards their close, and in
the middle of them, he used persuasions
and admonitions. I hope therefore that, by
your prayers, I shall in no respect falsely
represent the plan of that holy man. As he
was well skilled in these divine matters, and
knew the power of the divine teaching, he
deemed it necessary, in the first place, to make
known the word concerning Christ, and the
mystery regarding Him ; and then afterwards
to point to the correction of habits, so that
when they had learned to know the Lord, they
might earnestly desire to do those things which
He commanded. For when the Guide to the
laws is unknown, one does not readily pass on
to the observance of them. Faithful Moses,
the minister of God, adopted this method ; for
when he promulgated the words of the divine
dispensation of laws, he first proclaimed the
matters relating to the knowledge of God:
' Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one
Lord '7.' Afterwards, having shadowed Him
forth to the people, and taught of Him in
Whom they ought to believe, and informed
their minds of Him Who is truly God, he pro-
ceeds to lay down the law relating to those
things whereby a man may be well-pleasing to
Him, saying, ' Thou shalt not commit adultery ;
thou shalt not steal ; ' together witli the other
commandments. For also, according to the
Apostolic teaching, ' He that draweth near to
God must believe that He is, and that He is a
rewarder of them that seek Him ^^.' Now He
is sought by means of vijtuous deeds, as the
prophet saith ; ' Seek ye the Lord, and when
ye have found Him, call upon Him ; when He
is near to you, let the wicked forsake his ways,
and the lawless man his thoughts ^9.'
4. It will also be well it a man is not offended
at the testimony of the Shepherd, saying in the
beginning of his book, ' Before all things
believe that there is one God, Who created
and established all these things, and from non-
existence called them into being \' And,
further, the blessed Evangelists— who recorded
the words of the Lord — in the beginning of the
Gospels, wrote the things concerning our
Saviour ; so that, having first made known
the Lord, the Creator, they might be believed
when narrating the events that took place.
For how could they have been believed, when
writing respecting him who [was blind] from his
mother's womb, and those other blind men
who recovered their sight, and those who rose
from the dead, and the changing of water
into wine, and those lepers who were cleansed ;
if they had not taught of Him as the Creator,
writing, ' In the beginning was the Word ^ ? '
Or, according to Matthew, that He Who was
born of the seed of David, was Emmanuel, and
the Son of the living God ? He from Whom the
Jews, with the Arians, turn away their faces,
but Whom we acknowledge and worship, The
Apostle therefore, as was meet, sent to different
people, but his own son he especially reminded,
' that he should not despise the things in which
he had been instructed by him,' and enjoined
on him, 'Remember Jesus Christ, who rose
from the dead, of the seed of David, according
to my Gospel 3.' And speaking of these things
being delivered to him, to be always had m
remembrance, he immediately wriies to him.
saying, ' Meditate on these things : be engaged
» 2 Cor. xii. 21, '3 1 Cor. xi. i.
•5 Cf. Lei^ier ii. § i, and Lett,;r iii. § s.
8, note 17.
M I Tim. ii. 7.
i« Vid. Letter vii.
«7 Deut. vi. 4.
» Herm. Mand. 1.
18 Heb. xi. 6. ■» Is. Iv. 6, 7.
2 John i. I. 3 2 Tim. iii 14; ii. 8,
534
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
in them ■♦.' For constant meditation, and the
remembrance of divine words, strengthens piety
towards God, and produces a love" to Him
inseparable and not merely formal S; as he,
being of this mind, speaks about him-
self and others like-minded, saying boldly,
' Who shall separate us from the love of
God^?' For 7 such men, being confirmed in
the Lord, and possessing an unshaken dis-
position towards Him, and being one in spirit
(for^ 'he who is joined to the Spirit is one
spirit'), are sure 'as the mount Sion;' and
although ten thousand trials may rage against
them, they are founded upon a rock, which is
Christ?. In Him the careless take no de-
light ; and having no continuous purpose of
good, they are sullied by temporal attacks, and
esteem nothing more highly than present
things, being unstable and deserving reproof
as regards the faith. For ' either the care of
this world, or the deceitfulness of riches,
chokes them'°;' or, as Jesus said in that
parable which had reference to them, since
they have not established the faith that has
been preached to them, but continue only for
a time, immediately, in time of persecution, or
when affliction ariseth through the word, they
are offended. Now those who meditate evil,
we say, [think] not truth, but falsehood;
and not righteousness, but iniquity, for their
tongue learns to speak lies. They have
done evil, and have not ceased that they
might repent. For, persevering with delight
in wicked actions, they hasten thereto without
turning back, even treading under foot the
commandment with regard to neighbours, and,
instead of loving them, devise evil against
them, as the saint testifies, saying, ' And those
who seek me evil have spoken vanity, and
imagined deceit all the day ".' But that the
cause of such meditation is none other than
the want of instruction, the divine proverb has
already declared ; ' The son that forsaketh the
commandment of his father meditateth evil
words ".' But such meditation, because it is
evil, the Holy Spirit blames in these words,
and reproves too in other terms, saying, ' Your
hands are polluted with blood, your fingers
with sins; your lips have spoken lawlessness,
and your tongue imagineth iniquity : no man
4 1 Tim. iv. 15.
5 The Syrinc word here rendered 'not merely formal' is one
which seems to take no other meaning than 'inexpiable' — a sense
scarcely admissible in this place. The Greek was probably ayaTrrji/
Trpos aiiTov axi^pnTTOv Kal oiiK a<f>ocnoviJ.ivriv, This supposition
would account for the Syriac misapprehension of the word.
6 Rom. viii. 35.
7 The Syriac text from here to the words, 'There is also such
a proverb as this' (end of §), was discovered after Cureton's edition
of the Syriac, and is absent in Larsow.
8 Cor. vi 17. Ps. cxxv. I ; i Cor. x. 4 ; Matt. vii. 25.
1° Matt. xiiL 23. ^' Ps. xxxviii. 12. " Prov. xix.
27, LXX.
speaketh right things, nor is there true judg-
ment '3.' But what the end is of such perverse
imagining. He immediately declares, saying,
' They trust in vanities and speak falsehood ;
for they conceive mischief, and bring forth
lawlessness. They have hatched the eggs of
an asp, and woven a spider's web ; and he
who is prepared to eat of their eggs, when he
breaks them finds gall, and a basilisk therein ^4.'
Again, what the hope of such is, He has
already announced. ' Because righteousness
does not overtake them, when they waited for
light, they had darkness ; when they waited
for brightness, they walked in a thick cloud.
They shall grope for the wall like the blind, and
as those who have no eyes shall they grope ;
they shall fall at noon-day as at midnight ;
when dead, they shall groan. They shall roar
together as a bear, or as a dove ^5.'
This is the fruit of wickedness, these re-
wards are given to its familiars, for perverse-
ness does not deliver its own. But in truth,
against them it sets itself, and it tears them
first, and on them especially it summons ruin.
Woe to them against whom these are brought ;
for ' it is sharper than a two-edged sword ^^,'
slaying beforehand and very swiftly those who
will lay hold of it. For their tongue, according
to the testimony of the Psalmist, is a ' sharp
sword, and their teeth spears and arrows '7.'
But the wonderful part is that while often he
against whom men imagine [harm] suffers
nothing, they are pierced by their own spears :
for they possess, even in themselves, before
they reach others, anger, wrath, malice, guile,
hatred, bitterness. Although they may not be
able to bring these upon others, they forthwith
return upon and against themselves, as he
prays, saying, ' Let their sword enter into
their own heart.' There is also such a pro-
verb as this : ' The wicked is held fast by the
chain of his sins '^'
5. The Jews in their imaginings, and in
their agreeing to act unjustly against the Lord,
forgot that they were bringing wrath upon
themselves. Therefore does the Word lament
for them, saying, 'Why do the people exalt
themselves, and the nations imagine vain
things ^9?' For vain indeed was the imagina-
tion of the Jews, meditating death against the
Life % and devising unreasonable things against
the Word of the Father ^' For who that looks
upon their dispersion, and the desolation of
their city, may not aptly say, ' Woe unto them,
f
13 Is. lix. 3, 4. '4 lb. lix. 4, s. »S lb. lix. 9— ii.
16 Heb. iv. 13. '7 Ps. Ivii. 4. »8 lb. xxxvii. 15 ; Prov.
V. 22. '9 Ps. ii. I.
1 The parallel clause of this sentence would seem to determino
that by ' Life' here we must understand Christ.
2 aKoya kcto. tov Adyou toC IIoTpos. Of. Suicer. Thes, s.V,
'AAoyos torn. i. p. 199.
LETTER XI. EASTER, 339.
:)Ji
for they have imagined an evil imagination,
saying against their own soul, let us bind the
righteous man, because he is not pleasing to
us 3.' And full well is it so, my brethren ; for
when they erred concerning the Scriptures,
they knew not that ' he who diggeth a pit for
his neighbour falleth therein ; and he who
destroyeth a hedge, a serpent shall bite himt.'
And if they had not turned their faces from
the Lord, they would have feared what was
written before in the divine Psalms : ' The
heathen are caught in the pit which they
made ; in the snare which they hid is their
own foot taken. The Lord is known when
executing judgments : by the works of his
hands is the sinner taken s.' Let them observe
this, and how that ' the snare they know not
shall come upon them, and the net they hid
take them ^.' But they understood not these
things, for had they done so, ' they would not
have crucified the Lord of glory 7.'
6. Therefore the righteous and faithful ser-
vants of the Lord, who 'are made disciples
for the kingdom of heaven, and bring forth
from it things new and old ;' and who 'medi-
tate on the words of the Lord, when sitting
in the house, when lying down or rising up,
and when walking by the way^;'— since they
are of good hope because of the promise of
the Spirit which said, ' Blessed is the man that
hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly,
nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the
seat of corrupters; but his delight is in the
law of the Lord, and in His law doth he medi-
tate day and night? ; '—being grounded in
faith, rejoicing in hope, fervent in spirit, they
have boldness to say, ' My mouth shall speak
wisdom, and the meditation of my heart
shall be of understanding.' And again, ' I
have meditated on all Thy works, and on the
work of Thy hands has been my meditation.'
And, 'If I have remembered Thee on my bed,
and in the morning have meditated on Thee^° '
Afterwards, advancing in boldness, they say,
' The meditation of my heart is before Thee
at all times".' And what is the end of such
an one ? He cites immediately ; ' The Lord is
my Helper and my Redeemer".' For to those
who thus examine themselves, and conform
their hearts to the Lord, nothing adverse shall
happen ; for indeed, their heart is strength-
ened by confidence in the Lord, as it is
written, ' They who trust in the Lord are
as mount Sion : he who dwelleth in Jeru-
salem shall not be moved for everts.' For if
at any time, the crafty one shall be presump-
3 Is. iii. 9, 10, LXX. ; cf. Wisd. ii. 12. 4 Eccl. x. 8.
5 Ps. ix. IS. * lb. XXXV. 8. 7 i Cor. ii. 8. 8 Matt,
xiii. 52 ; Deut. vi. 7. 9 Ps. i. i. " lb. xlix. 3 ; cxiiii. 5 ;
Ixiii. 6. " lb. xix. 14. " lb. »3 lb. cxxv. i, LXX.
tuously bold against them, chiefly that he may
break the rank of the saints, and cause a
division among brethren ; even in this the
Lord is with them, not only as an avenger
on their behalf, but also when they have
already been beaten, as a deUverer for them.
For this is the divine promise ; ' The Lord
shall fight for you'*.' Henceforth, although
afflictions and trials from without overtake
them, yet, being fashioned after the apostolic
words, and 'being stedfast in tribulations, and
persevering in prayers 's' and in meditation
on the law, they stand against those things
which befall them, are well-pleasing to God,
and give utterance to the words which are
written, 'Afflictions and distresses are come
upon me; but Thy commandments are my
meditation'*.'
7. And whereas, not only in action, but
also in the thoughts of the mind, men are
moved to deeds of virtue, he afterwards adds,
saying, 'Mine eyes prevent the dawn, that
I might meditate on Thy words'?.' For it is
meet that the spiritual meditations of those
who are whole should precede their bodily
actions. And does not our Saviour, when
intending to teach this very thing begin with
the thoughts of the mind? saying, 'Whosoever
looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath
already committed adultery : ' and, ' Whoso-
ever shall be angry with his brother, is
guilty of murder'^.' For where there is no
wrath, murder is prevented ; and where lust is
first removed, there can be no accusation of
adultery. Hence meditation on the law is
necessary, my beloved, and uninterrupted
converse with virtue, ' that the saint may lack
nothing, but be perfect to every good work '9.'
For by these things is the promise of eternal
life, as Paul wrote to Timothy, calling con-
stant meditation exercise, and saying, ' Exer-
cise thyself unto godliness ; for bodily exercise
profiteth little ; but godliness is profitable for
all things, since it has the promise of the
present life, and of that which is eternal^".'
8. Worthy of admiration is the virtue of
that man, my brethren ! for through Timothy
he enjoins upon all', that they should have
regard to nothing more than to godliness,
but above everything to adjudge the chief
place to faith in God. For what grace has the
unrighteous man, though he may feign to keep
the commandments? Nay rather, the unrigh-
teous man is unable even to keep a portion of
the law, for as is his mind, such of necessity
must be his actions ; as the Spirit says, re-
proving such; ' The fool hath said in his heart.
M Exod. xiv. 14. 15 Rom. xii. 12. '* Ps. cxix. 143.
17 lb. cxix. 148. '8 Malt. v. 28, 22. »9 2 Tim. iii. 17.
»> I Tim. iv. 7, 8. » Cf. Letter 3, § 3, note 17 ; Af-ol. Const. r6.
536
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
there is no God.' After this the Word, shew-
ing that actions correspond with thoughts,
says, * They are corrupt ; they are profane in
their machinations ''.' The unrighteous man
then, in every respect corrupts his body ;
steahng, committing adultery, cursing, being
drunken, and doing such hke things. Even
as Jeremiah, the prophet, convicts Israel of
these things, crying out and saying, ' Oh, that
I had a lodge far off in the wilderness ! then
would I leave my people and depart from
them : for they are all adulterers, an assembly
of oppressors, who draw out their tongue as
a bow ; lying and not truth has prevailed upon
the earth, and they proceed from iniquities to
iniquities; but Me they have not known 3.'
Thus, for wickedness and falsehood, and for
deeds, in which they [proceed] from iniquity
to iniquity, he reproves their practices ; but,
because they knew not the Lord, and were
faithless, he charges them with unrighteous-
ness.
9. For faith and godliness are allied to
each other, and sisters ; and he who believes
in Him is godly, and he also who is godly,
believes the more*. He therefore who is in
a state of wickedness, undoubtedly also wan-
ders from the faith ; and he who falls from
godliness, falls from the true faith. Paul, for
instance, bearing testimony to the same point,
advises his disciple, saying, ' Avoid profane
conversations ; for they increase unto more
ungodliness, and their word takes hold as doth
a canker, of whom are Hynienseus and Phi-
letuss.' In what their wickedness consisted
he declares, saying, 'Who have erred from
the faith, saying that the resurrection is al-
ready past^.' But again, desirous of shewing
that faith is yoked with godliness, the Apostle
says, 'And all those who will live godly in
Jesus Christ shall suffer persecution 7.' After-
wards, that no man should renounce godliness
through persecution, he counsels them to pre-
serve the faith, adding, *Thou, therefore, con-
tinue in the things thou hast learned, and hast
been assured of^.' And as when brother is
helped by brother, they become as a wall to
each other; so faith and godliness, being of
like growth, hang together, and he who is
practised in the one, of necessity is strength-
ened by the other. Therefore, wishing the
disciple to be exercised in godhness unto the
end, and to contend for the faith, he counsels
them, saying, ' Fight the good fight of faith,
and lay hold on eternal life 9.' For if a man
first put away the wickedness of idols, and
rightly confesses Him Who is truly God, he
» Ps. xiv. I, 2. 3 Jer. ix. 2.
S 2 Tim. ii. 16, 17. 6 lb. ii. 18.
iii. 14. 9 I Tim. iv. 7.
4 Cf. John vii. 17.
7 lb. iii. 12. B lb.
next fights by faith with those who war against
Him.
10. For of these two things we speak of —
faith and godliness — the hope is the same,
even everlasting life; for he saith, 'Fight the
good fight of faith ; lay hold on eternal life.'
And, ' exercise thyself unto godliness, for i-1
hath the promise of the life that now is, and
of that which is to come'°.' For this cause,
the Ario-maniacs, who now have gone out
from the Church, being opponents of Christ,
have digged a pit of unbelief, into which they
themselves have been thrust ; and, since they
have advanced in ungodliness, they 'overthrow
the faith of the simple " ; ' blaspheming the
Son of God, and saying that He is a creature,
and has His being from things which are not.
But as then against the adherents of Philetus
and Hymenaeus, so now the Apostle fore-
warns all men against ungodliness like theirs,
saying, ' The foundation of God standeth sure,
having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that
are His ; and. Let every one that nameth the
name of the Lord depart from iniquity".' For
it is well that a man should depart from
wickedness and deeds of iniquity, that he may
be able properly to celebrate the feast ; for
he who is defiled with the pollutions of the
wicked is not able to sacrifice the Passover to
the Lord our God. Hence, the people who
were then in Egypt said, 'We cannot sacrifice
the Passover in Egypt to the Lord our God '3,'
For God, Who is over all, willed that they
should go far away from the servants of Pha-
raoh, and from the furnace of iron ; so that
being set free from wickedness, and having
carefully put away from them all strange no-
tions, they might receive the knowledge of
God and of virtuous actions. For He saith,
' Go far from them : depart from the midst of
them, and touch not the unclean things 'l'
For a man will not otherwise depart from sin,
and lay hold on virtuous deeds, than by medi-
tation on his acts; and when he has been
practised by exercise in godliness, he will lay
hold on the confession of faith's, which also
Paul, after he had fought the fight, possessed,
namely, the crown of righteousness which was
laid up ; which the righteous Judge will give,
not to him alone, but to all who are hke him.
11. For such meditation and exercise in
godliness, being at all times the habit of the
saints, is urgent on us at the present time,
when the divine word desires us to keep the
feast with them if we are in this disposition.
For what else is the feast, but the constant
10 I Tim. iv. 7, 8. " Rom. xvi. i8. " 8 Tim. iu 19.
13 Exod. viii. 26. '4 2 Cor. vi. 17.
15 The Syriac appears to be a translation of Kpan'i<7ei, nis o/»»-
Aoyios T^s TTtiTTecos (cf. Heb. iv. 14).
A/
f
LETTER XI. EASTER, 339.
537
worship of God, and the recognition of godH-
ness, and unceasing prayers from the whole
heart with agreement ? So Paul wishing us to
be ever in this disposition, commands, saying,
'Rejoice evermore; pray without ceasing; in
everything give thanks '6.' Not therefore sepa-
rately, but unitedly and collectively, let us all
keep the feast together, as the prophet ex-
horts, saying, ' O come, let us rejoice in the
Lord; let us make a joyful noise unto God
our Saviour '7.' Who then is so negligent, or
who so disobedient to the divine voice, as not
to leave everything, and run to the general
and common assembly of the feast ? which is
not in one place only, for not one place alone
keeps the feast ; but ' into all the earth their
song has gone forth, and to the ends of the
world their words.' And the sacrifice is not
offered in one place, but 'in every nation,
incense and a pure sacrifice is offered unto
(jod'.' So when in like manner from all in
every place, praise and prayer shall ascend
to the gracious and good Father, when the
whole Catholic Church which is in every
place, with gladness and rejoicing, celebrates
together the same worship to God, when all
men in common send up a song of praise and
say, Amen=; how blessed will it not be, my
brethren ! who will not, at that time, be en-
gaged, praying rightly ? For the walls of every
adverse power, yea even of Jericho especially,
falling down, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit
being then richly poured upon all men, every
man perceiving the coming of the Spirit shall
say, ' We are all filled in the morning with Thy
favour, and we rejoice and are made glad in
our days 4. '
12. Since this is so, let us make a joy-
ful noise with the saints, and let no one of
us fail of his duty in these things ; count-
ing as nothing the affliction or the trials
which, especially at this time, have been en-
viously directed against us by the party of
Eusebius. Even now they wish to injure us,
and by their accusations to compass our death,
because of that godliness, whose helper is the
Lord. But, as faithful servants of God, knowing
that He is our salvation in the time of trouble :
— for our Lord promised beforehand, saying,
* Blessed are ye when men revile you and per-
secute you, and say all manner of evil against
you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and be
exceeding glad, for your reward is great in
heavens.' Again, it is the Redeemer's own
word, that affliction shall not befall every man
in this world, but only those who have a holy
fear of Him : — on this account, the more the
16 I Thess. V. 16— j8. '7 Ps. xcv. i. ' lb. xix. 4 ; Mai. i.
II. a For a parallel passage to this, vid. Letter x. 2.
3 Cf. Letter x. 2, note g. Vid. also John vii. 39; Rum. v. 5 ;
John XX 23. 4 Pa. xc. 14, LXX. S Matt. v. 11, 12.
enemies hem us in, the more let us be at
liberty; although they revile us, let us come
together; and the more they would turn us
aside from godliness, let us the more boldly
preach it, saying, ' All these things are come
upon us, yet have we not forgotten Thee^'
and we have not done evil with the Ario-
maniacs, who say that Thou hast existence from
those things that exist not. The Word which
is eternally with the Father, is also from Him.
13. Let us therefore keep the feast, my
brethren, celebrating it not at all as an occa-
sion of distress and mourning, neither let us
mingle with heretics through temporal trials
brought upon us by godliness. But if anything
that would promote joy and gladness should
ofter, let us attend to it ; so that our heart may
not be sad, like that of Cain ; but that, like
faithful and good servants of the Lord, we may
hear the words, ' Enter into the joy of thy
Lord 7.' For we do not institute days of
mourning and sorrow, as some may consider
these of Easter to be, but we keep the feast,
being filled with joy and gladness. We keep
it then, not regarding it after the deceitful
error of the Jews, nor according to the teach-
ing of the Arians, which takes away the Son
from the Godhead, and numbers Him among
creatures ; but we look to the correct doctrine
we derive from the Lord. For the guile of the
Jews, and the unbounded impiety of the Arians,
cause nothing but sad reflections, for the
former at the beginning slew the Lord ; but
these latter take away His jDosition of having
conquered that death to which the Jews
brought Him, in that they say He is not the
Creator, but a creature. For if He were a
creature. He would have been holden by death;
but if He was not holden by death, according
to the Scriptures, He is not a creature, but the
Lord of the creatures, and the subject^ of
this immortal feast.
14. For the Lord of death would abolish
death, and being Lord, what He would was
accomplished ; for we have all passed from
death unto life. But the imagination of the
Jews, and of those who are like them, was
vain, since the result was not such as they
contemplated, but turned out adverse to them-
selves ; and ' at both of them He that sitteth
in the heaven shall laugh : the Lord shall iiave
them in derision 9.' Hence, when our Saviour
was led to death. He restrained the women
who followed Him weeping, saying, ' Weep not
for Me"";' meaning to shew that the Lord's
death is an event, not of sorrow but of joy,
and that He Who dies for us is alive. For
He does not derive His being from those
* Ps. xliv. 17.
Letter X. 2, note 8.
7 Matt. XXV. ai.
9 Ps. ii. 4.
8 Syr. un-df , Tn. Cf.
*o Luke xxii.. 2t!.
538
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
things which are not, but from the Father.
It is truly a subject of joy, that we can see the
signs of victory against death, even our own
incorruptibiUty, through the body of the Lord.
For since He rose gloriously, it is clear that
the resurrection of all of us will take place ;
and since His body remained without cor-
ruption, there can be no doubt regarding our
incorruption ^'. For as by one man ", as saith
Paul (and it is the truth), sin passed upon all
men, so by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus
Christ, we shall all rise. * For,' he says, ' this
corruptible must put on incorruption, and this
mortal must put on immortality ^3.' Now this
came to pass in the time of the Passion, in
which our Lord died for us, for ' our Passover,
Christ, is sacrificed ^4.' Therefore, because He
was sacrificed, let each of us feed upon Him,
and with alacrity and diligence partake of His
sustenance ; since He is given to all without
grudging, and is in every one ' a well of water
■flowing to everlasting life ^s.'
15. We begin the fast of forty days on the
ninth of the month Phamenoth (Mar. 5) ; and
having, in these days, served the Lord with
abstinence, and first purified ourselves ^^, we
commence also the holy Easter on the four-
teenth of the month Pharmuthi (April 9).
Afterwards, extending the fast to the seventh
day, on the seventeenth ^^ of the month, let us
rest late in the evening. And the light of the
Lord having first dawned upon us, and the
holy Sunday on which our Lord rose shining
upon us, we should rejoice and be glad with
the joy which arises from good works, during
the seven weeks which remain — to Pentecost —
giving glory to the Father, and saying, ' This is
the day which the Lord hath made : we will
rejoice and be glad in it'^,' through our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, through Whom to
the same, and to His Father, be glory and
dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Salute
one another with a holy kiss. All the brethren
who are with me salute you. That ye may
have health in the Lord, I pray, brethren
beloved.
Here endeth the eleventh Letter of holy
Athanasius.
*xn.
(Probably for 340 a.d.)
To the Beloved Brother, and our fellow Minister
Serapion ^.
Thanks be to Divine Providence for those
" Cf. de Incam. § 50. 12 Rom. v. 12. '3 1 Cor.
XV. 53. u lb. V. 7. iSjohniv. 14. '^^ Ci. Letter \\.
II. '7 Read ' nineteenth. '8 Ps. cxviii. 24.
• This Letter being introduced (as it is in the MS.) after the
eleventh, with the remark at the end of it, that there is no twelfth ;
together with the exhortations concerning fasting contained in it,
was probably written in lieu of a twelfth. Serapion was doubtless
the Bishop of Thmuis (see Letter 54).
things which, at all times, it vouchsafes to us y
for it has vouchsafed to us now to come to the
season of the festival. Having, therefore,
according to custom, written the Letter respect-
ing the festival, I have sent it to you, my
beloved ; that through you all the brethren
may be able to know the day of rejoicing. But
because some Meletians, being come from
Syria, have boasted that they had received what
does not belong to them, I mean, that they
also were reckoned in the Catholic Church ; on
this account, I have sent to you a copy of
one letter of our fellow-ministers who are
of Palestine, that when it reaches you, you
may know the fraud of the pretenders in
this matter. For because they boasted, as I
have said before, it was necessary for me to
write to the Bishops who are in Syria, and
immediately those of Palestine sent us a reply,
having agreed in^ the judgment against them,
as you may learn from this example. That
you may not have to consider the letters of
all the Bishops one after the other, I have
sent you one, which is of like character with
the rest, in order that from it you may know
the purport of all of them. I know also that
when they are convicted in this matter, they
will incur perfect odium at the hands of all
men. And thus far concerning the pretenders.
But I have further deemed it highly necessary
and very urgent, to make known to your
modesty — for I have written this to each one —
that you should proclaim the fast of forty days
to the brethren, and persuade them to fast,
lest, while all the world is fasting, we who are in
Egypt should be derided, as the only people
who do not fast, but take our pleasure in these
days. For if, on account of the Letter [not]
being yet read, we do not fast, we should take
away this pretext, and it should be read before
the fast of forty days, so that they may not make
this an excuse for neglect or fasting. Also,
when it is read, they may be able to learn
about the fast. But O, my beloved, whether
in this way or any other, persuade and teach
them to fast the forty days. For it is a disgrace
that when all the world does this, those alone
who are in Egypt, instead of fasting, should
find their pleasure. For even I being grieved
because men deride us for this, have been
constrained to write to you. When therefore
you receive the letters, and have read them
and given the exhortation, write to me in
return, my beloved, that I also may rejoice
upon learning it.
2, But I have also thought it necessary to
inform 3 you of the fact, that Bishops have suc-
* Or, 'fulfilled the judgment.' Cureton.
3 There is a similar notification of the appointment of fresh
Bishops appended to the nineteenth Letter.
LETTER XIII. EASTER, 341.
539
ceeded those who have fallen asleep. In Tanis,
in the stead of Elias *, is Theodorus. In Arse-
noitis, Silvanus s instead of Calosiris. In
Paralus, Nemesion is instead of Nonnus ^. In
Bucolia? is Heraclius. In Tentyra, Andro-
nicus is instead of Saprion^, his father. In
Thebes, Philon instead of Philon. In Max-
imianopolis, Herminus instead of Atras. In the
lower Apollon is Sarapion instead of Plution.
In Aphroditon, Serenus is in the place of Theo-
dorus. In Rhinocoruron, Salomon. In Stath-
ma, Arabion, and in Marmarica. In the eastern
Garyathis, Andragathius 9 in the place of
Hierax. In the southern Garyathis, Quintus 9
instead of Nicon '°. So that to these you may
write, and from these receive the canonical
Letters.
Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the
brethren who are with me salute you.
He wrote this from Rome. There is no
twelfth Letter.
LETTER XIIL
(For 341.)
Coss. Marcellinus^ Probmus ; Prmf. Longinus ;
Indict, xiv ; Easter-day, xiii Kal. Maii,
xxiv Fharmiithi ; yEra Diockt. 57.
Again, my beloved brethren, I am ready to
notify to you the saving feast % which will
take place according to annual custom. For al-
though the opponents of Christ^ have oppressed
you together with us with afflictions and
sorrows ; yet, God having comforted us by our
mutual faith 3, behold, I write to you even from
Rome. Keeping the feast here with the
brethren, still I keep it with you also in will
and in spirit, for we send up prayers in com-
mon to God, ' Who hath granted us not only to
believe in Him, but also now to suffer for His
sake-*.' For troubled as we are, because we
are so far from you. He moves us to write, that
4 Larsow writes ' Ilius.' Tanis is situate in Augustamnica Prima.
Vid. Qiintremere Meitioires geogr. et hisior. siir I'Egypte, torn. i.
p, 284, &c. (L.) The word Tai/is is the LXX. rendering of ' Zoan.'
In the Apol. c. Ar. 50, we have a list of ninety-four Egj-ptian
Bishops, among others, who subscribed to the letter of the Council
of Sardica. A reference to this list explains some names which
otherwise would have been obscure. For a list of the Egyptian
Bishoprics, the reader is referred to Neale's Hist, of the Holy
Eastern Church. Gen. Introd. vol. i. pp. 115. ii6- To the list
there given must be added the names of Bucolia, Stathma, the
Eastern Garyathis, the Southern Garyathis. There were two
Egyptian Bishops named Elias who subscribed their names to the
letter of the Council of Sardica.
5 Silvanus was succeeded by Andreas, as we learn from the
postscript to the nineteenth Letter.
6 An Egyptian Bishop named Nonnus was present at the Synod
of Tyre. Apol. c. Ar.% 79.
7 For a dissertation on the situation of Bucolia, see the
treatise by Quatremere, already referred to (tom. i. pp. 224 —
233). In p. 233, he writes ; La contree de I'Elearchie ou des Buco-
lies est, si je ne me trompe, parfaitement identique avec la pro-
vince de Baschmour.
8 An Egyptian Bishop of the name of Saprion was at the Synod
of Tyre. Apol. c- Ar. § 79. He is ' Serapion ' in Vit. Pach. 20.
9 Apol. Ar. 50. 1° Apol. Ar.yg. » Vid. Letter x. x.
2 The Arians (oi xpiaTOfiaxoi.)- ^ Cf. Rom. i. 12.
4 Phil. ■ 20
by a letter we might comfort ourselves, and
provoke one another to good *\ For, indeed,
numerous afflictions and bitter persecutions
directed against the Church have been against
us. For heretics, corrupt in their mind,
untried in the faith, rising against the truth,
violently persecute the Church, and of the
brethren, some are scourged and others torn
with stripes, and hardest of all, their insults
reach even to the Bishops. Nevertheless, it is
not becoming, on this account, that we should
neglect the feast. But we should especially
remember it, and not at all forget its com-
memoration from time to time. Now the
unbelievers do not consider that there is a
season for feasts, because they spend all their
lives in revelling and follies ; and the feasts
which they keep are an occasion of grief rather
than of joy. But to us in this present life they
are above all an uninterrupted passage [to
heaven] — it is indeed our season. For such
things as these serve for exercise and trial, so
that, having approved ourselves zealous and
chosen servants of Christ, we may be fellow-
heirs with the saints^. For thus Job: 'The
whole world is a place of trial to men upon the
earth s^' Nevertheless, they are proved in this
world by afflictions, labours, and sorrows, to the
end that each one may receive of God such
reward as is meet for him, as He saith by the
prophet, ' I am the Lord, Who trieth the hearts,
and searcheth the reins, to give to every one
according to his ways ^.'
2, Not that He first knows the things of
a man on his being proved (for He knows them
all before they come to pass), but because He
is good and philanthropic, He distributes to
each a due reward according to his actions, so
that every man may exclaim. Righteous is the
judgment of God ! As the prophet says again,
' The Lord trieth the just, and discerneth the
reins?.' Again, for this cause He tries each
one of us, either that to those who know it not,
virtue may be manifested by means of those
who are proved, as was said respecting Job ;
' Thinkest thou that I was revealed to thee for
any other cause, than that thou shouldest be
seen righteous ^ ? ' or that, when men come to
a sense of their deeds, they may be able to know
of what manner they are, and so may either
repent of their wickedness, or abide confirmed
in the faith. Now the blessed Paul, when
troubled by afflictions, and persecutions, and
hunger and thirst, 'in everything was a con-
queror, through Jesus Christ, Who loved us 9.'
Through suftering he was weak indeed in body,
yet, believing and hoping, he was made strong
4» Cf. Heb. X. 24 S Cf. Col. i. 12.
LXX. ^ Jer. xvii. 10. 7 lb. xx. la.
(3, 4, LXX.). 9 Rom. viii. ;7.
5* Job vii. I. not
8 Job xl. 6, g.
540
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
in spirit, and his strength was made perfect in
weakness 9\
3. The other saints also, who had a Uke con-
fidence in God, accepted a hke probation with
gladness, as Job said, ' Blessed be the name of
the Lord '°.' But the Psalmist, ' Search me, O
Lord, and try me : prove my reins and my
heart".' For since, when the strength is
proved, it convinceth the foolish, they perceiv-
ing the cleansing and the advantage resulting
from the divine fire, were not discouraged in
trials like these, but they rather delighted in
them, suffering no injury at all from the things
which happened, but being seen to shine more
brightly, like gold from the fire ", as he said,
who was tried in such a school of discipline as
this ; ' Thou hast tried my heart, Thou hast
visited me in the night-season ; Thou hast
proved me, and hast not found iniquity in me,
so that my mouth shall not speak of the works
of men '3.' But those -whose actions are not
restrained by law, who know of nothing beyond
eating and drinking and dying, account trials as
danger. They soon stumble at them, so that,
being untried in the faith, they are given over
to a reprobate mind, and do those things which
are not seemly ''sa. Therefore the blessed Paul,
when urging us to such exercises as these, and
having before measured himself by them, says,
'Therefore I take pleasure in afflictions, in
infirmities.' And again, ' Exercise thyself unto
godliness H' For since he knew the persecu-
tions that befel those who chose to live in god-
liness, he wished his disciples to meditate
beforehand on the difiiculties connected with
godliness ; that when trials should come,
and affliction arise, they might be able to bear
them easily, as having been exercised in these
things. For in those things wherewith a man
has been conversant in mind, he ordinarily
experiences a hidden joy. In this way, the
blessed martyrs, becoming at first conversant
with difficulties, were quickly perfected in
Christ, regarding as nought the injury of the
body, while they contemplated the expected
rest.
4. But all those who ' call their lands by their
own names ^s^' and have wood, and hay, and
stubble ^^ in their thoughts ; such as these,
since they are strangers to difficulties, become
aliens from the kingdom of heaven. Had they
however known that 'tribulation perfecteth
patience, and patience experience, and expe-
rience hope, and hope maketh not ashamed,'
they would have exercised themselves, after the
example of Paul, who said, ' I keep under my
9» 2 Cor. xii. 9._ »o Job i. 21. " Ps. xxvi. 2. " Cf.
Mai. iii. 3 ; i Pet. i. 7. 13 Ps. xvii. 3, 4, LXX.
i3» Rom. I. 28. 14 2 Cor. xii. 10 ; i Tim. iv. 7. '5 Ps.
xVix. II (Larsow mistakes the reference) '* Cf. i Cor. iii. 12.
body and bring it into subjection, lest when I
have preached to others, I myself should be a
castaway^' They would easily have borne the
afflictions which were brought upon them to
prove them from time to time, if the prophetic
admonition^ had been listened to by them; 'It
is good for a man to take up Thy yoke in his
youth ; he shall sit alone and shall be silent,
because he hath taken Thy yoke upon him.
He will give his cheek to him who smiteth him ;
he will be filled with reproaches. Because the
Lord does not cast away for ever ; for when He
abases, He is gracious, according to the multi-
tude of His tender mercies 3.' For though all
these things should proceed from the enemies,
stripes, insults, reproaches, yet shall they avail
nothing against the multitude of God's tender
mercies ; for we shall quickly recover from
them since they are merely temporal, but God
is always gracious, pouring out His tender
mercies on those who please [Him]. There-
fore, my beloved brethren, we should not look
at these temporal things, but fix our attention
on those which are eternal. Though affliction
may come, it will have an end, though insult
and persecution, yet are they nothing to the
hope which is set [before us]. For all present
matters are trifling compared with those which
are future ; the sufferings of this present time
not being worthy to be compared with the hope
that is to come 1 For what can be compared
with the kingdom ? or what is there in com-
parison with life eternal ? Or what is all we
could give here, to that which we shall inherit
yonder ? For we are ' heirs of God, and joint-
heirs with Christ 5.' Therefore it is not r-ight,
my beloved, to consider afflictions and persecu-
tions, but the hopes which are laid up for us
because of persecutions.
5. Now to this the example of Issachar, the
patriarch, may persuade, as the Scripture ^ saith,
' Issachar desires that which is good, resting
between the heritages ; and when he saw that
the rest was good, and the land fertile 7, he
bowed his shoulder to labour, and became a
husbandman.' Being consumed by divine
love, like the spouse in the Canticles, he
gathered abundance from the holy Scriptures,
for his mind was captivated not by the old
alone, but by both the heritages. And hence
as it were, spreading his wings, he beheld
afar off ' the rest ' which is in heaven, and, —
I Rom. V. 3 ; I Cor. ix. 27. ' Lam. iiL 27.
3 Cf. Serapion E/zsta/a ad Monachos, in Mai Spicileg. Rom.
torn. iv. p. li. (L.)
4 Cf. Rom. viii. 18 ; 2 Cor. iv. 17. 5 Rom. viii. 17.
6 Gen. xlix. 14.
7 Jarchi interprets the passage figuratively o' Issachar being
strong to bear the yoke ot the law. Tlie Jeii.s.uem Targum thus
paraphrases the verse. ' And he saw the rest of the world to come,
that it was good, and the portion of the land of Israel, that it was
pleasant ; therefore he inclined his .shoulders to work in the law,
and his brethren brought gifts unto him.
LETTER XIV. EASTER, 342.
541
since this 'land' consists of such beautiful
works, — how much more truly the heavenly
[country] must also [consist] of such^ ; for the
other is ever new, and grows not old. For this
'land ' passes away, as the Lord said ; but that
which is ready to receive the saints is immortal.
Now when Issachar, the patriarch, saw these
things, he joyfully raade his boast of afflictions
and toils, bowing his shoulders that he might
labour. And he did not contend with those
who smote him, neither was he disturbed by
insults; but like a strong man triumphing the
more by these things, and the more earnestly
tilling his land, he received profit from it. The
Word scattered the seed, but he watchfully
cultivated it, so that it brought forth fruit, even
a hundred-fold.
6. Now what does this mean, my beloved,
but that we also, when the enemies are arrayed
against us, should glory in affliction s^*, and that
when we are persecuted, we should not be
discouraged, but should the rather press after
the crown of the high calling9 in Christ Jesus
our Lord ? and that being insulted, we should
not be disturbed, but should give our cheek to
the smiter, and bow the shoulder? For the
lovers of pleasure and the lovers of enmity
are tried, as saith the blessed Apostle James,
'when they are drawn away by their own
lusts and enticed ''°.' But let us, knowing that
we suffer for the truth, and that those who
deny the Lord smite and persecute us, ' count
it all joy, my brethren,' according to the words
of James, ' when we fall into trials of various
temptations, knowing that the trial of our
faith worketh patience".' Let us rejoice as
we keep the feast, my brethren, knowing that
our salvation is ordered in the time of affliction.
For our Saviour did not redeem us by in-
activity, but by suffering for us He abolished
death. And respecting this. He intimated to
us before, saying, ' In the world ye shall have
tribulation ^^' But He did not say this to
every man, but to those who diligently and
faithfully perform good service to Him, know-
ing beforehand, that they should be persecuted
who would live godly toward Him.
7. ' But evil-doers and sorcerers will wax
worse and worse, deceiving and being de-
ceived ^3.' If therefore, like those expounders
of dreams and false prophets who professed
to give signs, these ignorant men being drunk,
not with wine, but with their own wickedness,
make a profession of priesthood, and glory
in their threats, believe them not ; but since
we are tried, let us humble ourselves, not being
drawn away by them. For so God warned His
'' Larsow's rendering of the above is followed. ^'^ Rom. v. 3.
9 Cf. Phil. 14. TO ppafielov r»js avio (cATJaeus. _ 1° James i. 14.
«i lb. i. 2. " John xvi. 33. '.3 2 Tim. iii. 13.
people by Moses, saying, ' If there shall rise
up among you a prophet, or a dreamer of
dreams, and shall give signs and tokens, and
the sign or the token shall come to pass which
he spake to thee, saying. Let us go and serve
strange gods, which ye have not known ; ye
shall not hearken unto the words of that pro-
phet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord
your God trieth you, that He may know whether
you will love the Lord your God with all your
heart ^4.' So we, when we are tried by these
things, will not separate ourselves from the
love of God. But let us now keep the feast,
my beloved, not as introducing a day of suffer-
ing, but of joy in Christ, by Whom we are fed
every day. Let us be mindful of Him Who
was sacrificed in the days of the Passover;
for we celebrate this, because Christ the Pass-
over was sacrificed '5. He Who once brought
His people out of Egypt, and hath now abo-
lished death, and him that had the power of
death, that is the devil ^'^, will likewise now turn
him to shame, and again grant aid to those
who are troubled, and cry unto God day and
night '7.
8. We begin the fast of forty days on the
thirteenth of Phainenoth (9 Mar.), and the
holy week of Easter on the eighteenth of Phar-
muthi (Apr. 13); and resting on the seventh
day, being the twenty-third (Apr. 18), and the
first of the great week having dawned on the
twenty-fourth of the same month Pharmuthi
(Apr. 19), let us reckon from it till Pentecost.
And at all times let us sing praises, calling on
Christ, being delivered from our enemies by
Christ Jesus our Lord, through Whom to the
Father be glory and dominion for ever and
ever. Amen. Greet one another with a holy
kiss. All those who are here with me salute
you. I pray, my beloved brethren, that ye may
have health in the Lord.
He wrote this also from Roma Here
endeth the thirteenth Letter.
LETTER XIV.
(For 342.)
Coss. Augustus Constantius III, Const ans II ;
Prcsf. the same Longinus ; Indict, xv; Easter-
day in Id. Apr., xvi Pharmuthi ; /Era
Dioclet. 58,
The gladness of our feast, my brethren, is
always near at hand, and never fails those who
wish to celebrate it'. For the Word is near,
Who is all things on our behalf, even our Lord
Jesus Christ, Who, having promised that His
habitation with us should be perpetual, in
'4 Deut. xiiu i — 3.
17 Luke xviii. 7.
15 I Cor. V. 7.
Cf. Letter v. i.
16 Heb. ii. 14.
542
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
virtue thereof cried, saying, 'Lo, I am with
you all the days of the world ^.' For as
He is the Shepherd, and the High Priest,
and the Way and the Door, and every-
thing at once to us, so again, He is shewn
to us as the Feast, and the Holyday, ac-
cording to the blessed Apostle ; ' Our Pass-
over, Christ, is sacrificed 3.' He it was who
was expected, He caused a light to shine
at the prayer of the Psahnist, who said,
' My Joy, deliver me from those who sur-
round me 4;' this being indeed true rejoicing,
this being a true feast, even deliverance from
wickedness, whereto a man attains by tho-
roughly adopting an upright conversation, and
being approved in his mind of godly submis-
sion towards Gods. For thus the saints all
their lives long were like men rejoicing at
a feast. One found rest in prayer to God,
as blessed David ^ who rose in the night, not
once but seven times. Another gave glory
in songs of praise, as great Moses, who sang
a song of praise for the victory over Pharaoh,
and those task-masters 7, Others performed
worship with unceasing diligence, like great
Samuel and blessed Elijah ; who have ceased
from their course, and now keep the feast in
heaven, and rejoice in what they formerly
learnt through shadows, and from the types
recognise the truth.
2. But what sprinklings shall we now employ,
while we celebrate the feast ? Who will be our
guide, as we haste to this festival ? None can
do this, my beloved, but Him Whom you will
name with me, even our Lord Jesus Christ,
Who said, 'I am the Way.' For it is He
Who, according to the blessed John, ' taketh
away the sin of the world 2.' He purifies our
souls, as Jeremiah the prophet says in a certain
place, ' Stand in the ways and see, and enquire,
and Ipok which is the good path, and ye shall
find in it cleansing for your souls 9.' Qf old
tincie, the blood of he-goats and the ashes of a
heifer, sprinkled upon those who were unclean,
were fit only to purify the flesh9»; but now,
through the grace of God the Word, every man
is thoroughly cleansed. Following Him, we
may, even here, as on the threshold of the
Jerusalem which is above, meditate beforehand
on the feast which is eternal, as also the
blessed Apostles, together following the
Saviour Who was their Leader, have now
become teachers of a like grace, saying,
' Behold, we have left all, and followed Thee'^.'
For the following of the Lord, and the feast
which is of the Lord, is not accomplished by
* Matt. xxviiL 30,
S Cf. Letter iii. 2.
8 John xiv. 6 ; i. 29.
»o Mark x. 28.
3 I Cor. V. 7. 4 Ps. xxxi. 7, LXX.
6 Ps. cxix. 62, 164, 7 Exod. xv.
9 Jer. vi. 16. 9> Heb. ix. 13.
words only, but by deeds, every enactment of
laws and every command involving a distinct
performance. For as great Moses, when
administering the holy laws, exacted a promise
from the people ", respecting the practice of
them, so that having promised, they might not
neglect them, and be accused as liars, thus
also, the celebration of the feast of the Passover
raises no question, and demands no reply;
but when tlie word is given, the performance of
it follows, for He saith, 'And the children of
Israel shall keep the Passover";' intending
that there should be a ready performance of the
commandment, while the command should aid
its execution. But respecting these matters,
I have confidence in your wisdom, and your
care for instruction. Such points as these have
been touched upon by us often and in various ,
Letters.
3. But now, which is above all things most
necessary, I wish to remind you, and myself
with you, how that the command would have
us come to the Paschal feast not profanely
and without preparation, but with sacramental
and doctrinal rites, and prescribed observances,
as indeed we learn from the historical account,
' A man who is of another nation, or bought
with money, or uncircumcised, shall not eat the
Passover ^3.' Neither should it be eaten in
'any' house, but He commands it to be done
in haste ; inasmuch as before we groaned and
were made sad by the bondage to Pharaoh, and
the commands of the task-masters. For when
in former time the children of Israel acted in
this way, they were counted worthy to receive
the type, which existed for the sake of this feast,
nor is the feast now introduced on account ot
the type. As also the Word of God, when
desirous of this, said to His disciples, ' With
desire I have desired to eat this Passover with
you '+.' Now that is a wonderful account, for
a man might have seen them at that time
girded as for a procession or a dance, and
going out with staves, and sandals, and un-
leavened bread. These things, which took
place before in shadows, were typical But
now the Truth is nigh unto us, ' the Image of
the invisible God 's^' our Lord Jesus Christ, the
true Light, Who instead of a staff, is our
sceptre, instead of unleavened bread, is the
bread which came down from heaven. Who,
instead of sandals, hath furnished us with the
preparation of the Gospel ^^, and Who, to speak
briefly, by all these hath guided us to His
Father. And if enemies afflict us and perse-
cute us. He again, instead of Moses, will
encourage us with better words, saying, ' Be of
I
" Exod. xix. 8.
'4 Luke xxii. 15.
IS lb. xii. 47.
'S Col. i. IS.
13 lb. xii. 43—48.
»6 Eph. vi. IS.
LETTER XIV. EASTER, 342.
543
good cheer; I have overcome the wicked
one '7.' And if after we have passed over the
Red Sea heat should again vex us or some
bitterness of the waters befall us, even thence
again the Lord will appear to us, imparting to
us of His sweetness, and His life-giving foun-
tain, saying, * If any man thirst, let him come
to Me, and drink '^'
4. Why therefore do we tarry, and why do
we delay, and not come with all eagerness and
diligence to the feast, trusting that it is Jesus
who calleth us? Who is all things for us, and
was laden in ten thousand ways for our salva-
tion ; Who hungered and thirsted for us,
though He gives us food and drink in His
saving gifts ^9. For this is His glory, this the
miracle of His divinity, that He changed our
sufferings for His happiness. For, being life.
He died that He might make us alive, being
the Word, He became flesh, that He mii;ht
instruct the flesh in the Word, and being the
fountain of life. He thirsted our thirst, that
thereby He might urge us to the feast, saying,
' If any man thirst, let him come to Me, and
drink ^' At that time, Moses proclaimed the
beginning of the feast, saying, 'This month is
the beginning of months to you ^' But the
Lord, Who came down in the end of the ages 3,
proclaimed a different day, not as though He
would abolish the law, far from it, but that He
should establish the law, and be the end of the
law. ' For Christ is the end of the law to
every one that believeth in righteousness ; ' as
the blessed Paul saith, ' Do we make void the
law by faith ? far from it : we rather estab-
lish the law 4.' Now these things astonished
even the ofiicers who were sent by the Jews, so
that wondering they said to the Pharisees, 'No
man ever thus spake j.' What was it then that
astonished those officers, or what was it which
so affected the men as to make them marvel ?
It was nothing but the boldness and authority
of our Saviour. For when of old time pro-
phets and scribes studied the Scriptures, they
perceived that what they read did not refer to
themselves, but to others. Moses, for instance,
' A prophet will the Lord raise up unto you of
your brethren, like unto me ; to him hearken
in all that he commands you.' Isaiah again,
' Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a
son, and ye shall call his name Emmanuel^.'
And others prophesied in different and various
ways, concerning the Lord. But by the Lord,
of Himself, and of no other, were these things
prophesied ; to Himself He limited them all,
saying, ' If any man thirst, let him come to
17 John xvi. 33 ; cf. i John u. 13. '^ lb. yii. 37. »9 Cf.
sufr. p. 88, I John vii. 37. * Exod. xii. 2. 3 Heb.
ix. 26. 4 Rom. X. 4 ; iii. 31. S John vii. 46.
6 Dent, xviii. 15 ; Is. vii. 14. These two texts are also quoted
togetlier in Orat. i. § 54.
Me ^ ' — not to any other person, but to ' Me.'
A man may indeed hear from those concerning
My coming, but he must not henceforth drink
from others, but from Me.
5. Therefore let us also, when we come to
the feast, no longer come as to old shadows,
for they are accomplished, neither as to com-
mon feasts, but let us hasten as to the Lord,
Who is Himself the feast ^ not looking upon
it as an indulgence and delight of the belly,
but as a manifestation of virtue. For the
feasts of the heathen are full of greediness, and
utter indolence, since they consider they cele-
brate a feast when they are idle 9; and they
work the woiks of perdition when they feast.
But our feasts consist in the exercise of
virtue and the practice of temperance ; as the
prophetic word testifies in a certain place,
saying, ' The fast of the fourth, and the fast of
the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the
fast of the tenth [month], shall be to the house
of Judah for gladness, and rejoicing, and for
pleasant feasts ^°.' Since therefore this occa-
sion for exercise is set before us, and such
a day as this is come, and the prophetic voice
has gone forth that the feast shall be cele-
brated, let us give all diligence to this good
proclamation, and like those who contend on
the race course, let us vie with each other in
observing the purity of the fast", by watch-
fulness in prayers, by study of the Scrip-
tures, by distributing to the poor, and let us
be at peace with our enemies. Let us bind
up those who are scattered abroad, banish
pride, and return to lowliness of mind, being
at peace with all men, and urging the brethren
unto love. Thus also the blessed Paul was often
engaged in fastings and watchings, and was
willing to be accursed for his brethren. Blessed
David again, having humbled himself by fast-
ings, used boldness, saying, ' O Lord my God,
if I have done this, if there is any iniquity in
my hands, if I have repaid those who dealt
evil with me, then may I fall from my enemies
as a vain man ".' If we do these things, we
shall conquer death ; and receive an earnest '3
of the kingdom of heaven.
6. We begin the holy Easter feast on the
tenth of Pharmuthi (^April 5), desisting from
the holy fasts on the fifteenth of the same
month Pharmuthi (April 10), on the evening
of the seventh day. And let us keep the holy
feast on the sixteenth of the same month
Pharmuthi (April 11) ; adding one by one [the
days] till the holy Pentecost, passing on to
which, as through a succession of feasts, let us
keep the festival to the Spirit, Who is even
7 John vii. 37. 8 Cf. i Cor. v. 7. 9 Cf. Letter vii. 3.
10 Zech. viii. 19. " Ct. i Cor. i.f. 24 — 27. '^ Kom. ix. 3 ;
Ps. vii. 3, 4, LXX. 13 Syr. ".VppaiScui/. Cf. Eph. i. 13, 14, fi:c
544
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
now near us, in Jesus Christ, through Whom
and with Whom to the Father be glory and
dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
The fifteenth and sixteenth are wanting,
LETTER XVII.
(For 345.)
Coss. Amantms, Albiinis ; Prmf. Nestorius of
Gaza; Indict. Hi ; Easter-day, vii Id. Apr.,
xii Fharmiithi ; Moon 19 ; ^Era Dioclet, 61.
Athanasius to the Presbyters and Deacons
of Alexandria, and to the beloved brethren,
greeting in Christ.
According to custom, I give you notice re-
specting Easter, my beloved, that you also
may notify the same to the districts of those
who are at a distance, as is usual. Therefore,
after this present festival % I mean this which
is on the twentieth of the month Pharmuthi,
the Easter-day following will be on the vii Id.
April, or according to the Alexandrians, on
the twelfth of Pharmuthi. Give notice there-
fore in all those districts, that Easter-day will
be on the vii Id. April, or according to the
Alexandrian reckoning on the twelfth of Phar-
muthi. That you may be in health in Christ,
I pray, my beloved brethren.
LETTER XVIII.
(For 346 )
Coss. Augustus Const ant ins IV, Consians III ;
FrcBf. the same Nestorius; Indict, iv; Easter-
day Hi Kal. Apr., iv Pharmtithi ; Moon 21 /
Mra Dioclet. 62.
Athanasius, to the Presbyters and Deacons
of Alexandria, brethren beloved in the Lord,
greeting.
You have done well, dearly beloved bre-
thren, that you have given the customary
notice of the holy Easter in those districts ;
for I have seen and acknowledged your exact-
ness. By other letters I have also given you
notice, that when this year is finished, ye may
know concerning the next. Yet now I have
thought it necessary to write the same things
that, when you have it exactly, you also may
write with care. Therefore, after the con-
clusion of this feast, which is now drawing
to its close, on the twelfth of the month Phar-
muthi, which is on the vii Id. Apr. ^, Easter-
day will be on the iii Kal. April ; the fourth of
Pharmuthi, according to the Alexandrians.
When therefore the feast is finished, give no-
I Observe that Athan. gives notice at Easter, a.d. 344, upon
what day Easter is to be observed in a.d. 345, and not imme-
diately after the succeeding Epiphany, as Cassian asserts to have
been the custom of the Patriarch of Alexandria. (Cassian. Collat.
X. I.) Cf. Letters 2, 4, 10, 18, &c.
3 The number vii is omitted in the MS.
tice again in these districts, according to early
custom, thus: Easter Sunday is on the iii Kal.
April, which is the fourth of Pharmuthi, ac-
cording to the Alexandrian reckoning. And
let no man hesitate concerning the day, neither
let any one contend, saying, It is requisite
that Easter should be held on the twenty-
seventh of the month Phamenoth ; for it was
discussed in the holy Synods, and all there
settled it to be on the iii Kal. April. I say
then that it is on the fourth of the month
Pharmuthi ; for the week before this is much
too early4. Therefore let there be no dispute,
but let us act as becometh us. For I have
thus written to the Romans also. Give notice
then as it has been notified to you, that it
is on the iii Kal. April ; the fourth of Phar-
muthi, according to the Alexandrian reckon-
ing.
That ye may have health in the Lord, I
pray, my dearly beloved brethren.
LETTER XIX
(For 347.)
Coss. Rufinus, Eusebius ; Frcef. the same Nes-
torius; Indict, v; Easter-day, Prid. Id.
Apr., Pharmuthi xvii; JEra Dioclet. (i2)\
Moon 15.
'Blessed is God, the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ',' for such an introduction is
fitting for an Epistle, and more especially
now, when it brings thanksgiving to the Lord,
in the Apostle's words, because He hath
brought us from a distance, and granted us
again to send openly to you, as usual, the
Festal Letters. For this is the season of the
feast, my brethren, and it is near; being not
now proclaimed by trumpets, as the history re-
cords^, but being made known and brought near
to us by the Saviour, Who suffered on our be-
half and rose again, even as Paul preached,
saying, ' Our Passover, Christ, is sacrificed 3.'
Henceforth the feast of the Passover is ours,
not that of a stranger, nor is it any longer
of the Jews'*. For the time of shadows is
abolished, and those former things have ceased,
and now the month of new thingsi^ is at hand,
in which every man should keep the feast, in
obedience to Him who said, ' Observe the
3 Sardica, in 343.
4 The 14th day of the Moon, reckoning from the time almean
New Moon, took place on Sunday the 23rd. According to the rule
which obtained in later times, and continued in use until the
Gregorian reformation of the Calendar, the 14th day of the Ec-
clesiastical Moon took place on Saturday the 22nd, which would
make Easter-day happen on the 23rd. It would seem, therefore,
that the decision of the Synod referred to, brought the Ecclesi-
astical Moon into closer accordance with that of the heavens, than
the later Calendar would have done. In 357 Easter was ap-
parently kept on Mar. 23.
I Eph. i- 3. 2 Cf. Letter \. i. 3 i Cor. v. 7, cf.
Letter i. 4 Cf. Letter 6, § 2, and note. 4» Deut. xvi. i, LXX.
LETTER XIX. EASTER, 347.
545
month of new things, and keep the Passover
to the Lord thy Gods.' Even the heathen
fancy they keep festival, and the Jews hypo-
critically feign to do so. But the feast of the
heathen He reproves, as the bread ^ of mourners,
and He turns His face from that of the Jews,
as being outcasts, saying, 'Your new moons
and your sabbaths My soul hateth 7.'
2. For actions not done lawfully and piously,
are not of advantage, though they may be re-
puted to be so, but they rather argue hypocrisy
in those who venture upon them. Therefore,
although such persons feign to offer sacrifices,
yet they hear from the Father, 'Your whole
burnt-offerings are not acceptable, and your
sacrifices do not please Me ; and although ye
bring fine flour, it is vanity, incense also
is an abomination unto Me ^.' For God does
not need anything 9; and, since nothing
is unclean to Him, He is full in regard to
them, as He testifies, by Isaiah, saying, ' I am
full ^°.' Now there was a law given about
these things, for the instruction of the people,
and to prefigure things to come, for Paul saith
to the Galatians ; ' Before faith came, we were
kept guarded under the law, being shut up in
the faith which should afterwards be revealed
unto us ; wherefore the law was our instructor
in Christ, that we might be justified by faith".'
But the Jews knew not, neither did they un-
derstand, therefore they walked in the day-
time as in darkness, feeling for, but not touch-
ing, the truth we possess, which [was contained]
in the law ; conforming to the letter, but not
submitting to the spirit. And when Moses was
veiled, they looked on him, but turned away
their faces from him when he was uncovered.
For they knew not what they read, but erro-
neously substituted one thing for another.
The prophet, therefore, cried against them,
saying, ' Falsehood and faithlessness have pre-
vailed among them.' The Lord also therefore
said concerning them, ' The strange children
have dealt falsely with Me; the strange children
have waxen old ".' But how gently does He
reprove them, saying, ' Had ye believed Moses,
ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of
Me '3.' But being faithless, they went on to
deal falsely with the law, affirming things after
their own pleasure, but not understanding the
Scripture ; and, further, as they had hypocriti-
cally made a pretence of the plain text of Scrip-
ture, and had confidence in this, He is angry
with them, saying by Isaiah, 'Who hath re-
S Deut. xvi. I, LXX., cf. Letter i, § 9, and note. * Hos.
ix. 4. 7 Is. i. 14. 8 lb. i. 13 ; Jer. vi. 20. 9 Orat. ii.
28, 29. 10 Is. i. II.
" Gal. iii. 23, 24. Athan. reads into S. Paul's words the
thought that the Law itself, however misunderstood by thejews,
involved the faith of Christ. '* Ps. xviii. 44, 4S> LXX.
13 John V. 46.
VOL. IV. N
quired these of your hands "4?' And by Ji re-
miah, since they were very bold, he threatens,
'Gather together your whole burnt-ofienngs
with your sacrifices, and eat flesh , for I si)ake
not unto your fathers, nor commanded them
in the day that I brought them out of the land
of Egypt, concerning whole burnt-offerings and
sacrifices 's.' For they did not act as was
right, neither was their zeal according to law,
but they rather sought their own pleasure in
such days, as the prophet accuses tliem, beating
down their bondsmen, and gathering themselves
together for strifes and quarrels, and they
smote the lowly with the fist, and did all
things that tended to their own gratification.
For this cause, they continue without a feast
until the end, although they make a display
now of eating flesh, out of place and out of
season. For, instead of the legally-appointed
lamb, they have learned to sacrifice to Baal ;
instead of the true unleavened bread, 'they
collect the wood, and their fathers kindle the
fire, and their wives prepare the dough, that
they may make cakes to the host of heaven,
and pour out libations to strange gods, that
they may provoke Me to anger, saith the
Lord '^' They have the just reward of such
devices, since, although they pretend to keep
the Passover, yet joy and gladness is taken
from their mouth, as saith Jeremiah, ' There
hath been taken away from the cities of Judah,
and the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of those
who are glad, and the voice of those who
rejoice ; the voice of the bridegroom, and the
voice of the bride'?.' Therefore now, 'he
who among them sacrificeth an ox, is as he
who smiteth a man, and he who sacrificeth
a lamb is as he who killeth a dog, he that
oftereth fine flour, is as [if he offered] swine's
blood, he that giveth frankincense for a me-
morial, is as a blasphemer'^.' Now these
things will never please God, neither thus hath
the word required of them. But He saith,
'These have chosen their own ways ; and their
abominations are what their soul delighteth
in '9.'
3. And what does this mean my brethren ?
For it is right for us to investigate the say-
ing of the prophet, and especially on account
of heretics who have turned their mind against
the law. By Moses then, God gave com-
mandment respecting sacrifices, and all the
book called Leviticus is entirely taken up
with the arrangement of these matters, so
that He might accept the offerer. So through
the Prophets, He blames him who despised
these things, as disobedient to the command-
»4 Is. i. 12.
•7 lb. vii. 34.
'5 Jer. vii. 21, 22.
»8 Is. Ixvi. 3.
16 lb. vii.
■9 lb.
546
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
ment, saying, 'I have not required these at
your hands. Neither did I speak to your
fathers respecting sacrifices, nor command
them concerning whole burnt-offerings ^' Now
it is the opinion of some, that the Scriptures do
not agree together, or that God, Who gave the
commandment, is false. But there is no dis-
agreement whatever, far from it, neither can
the Father, Who is truth, lie ; ' for it is im-
possible that God should lie^' as Paul affirms.
But all these things are plain to those who
rightly cons dir them, and to those who re-
ceive with fait 1 the writings of the law. Now
it appears to me — may God giant, by your
prayers, that the remarks I presume to make
may not be far from the truth — that not at first
were the commandment and the law concern-
ing sacrifices, neither did the mind of God,
Who gave the law, regard whole burnt-offerings,
but those things which were pointed out and
prefigured by them. ' For the law contained
a shadow of good things to come.' And,
'Those things were appointed until the time
of reformation 3.'
4. Therefore, the whole law did not treat of
sacrifices, though there was in the law a com-
mandment concerning sacrifices, that by means
of them it might begin to instruct men and
might withdraw them from idols, and bring
them near to God, teaching them for that
present time. Therefore neither at the be-
ginning, when God brought the people out
of Egypt, did He command them concerning
sacrifices or whole burnt-offerings, nor even
when they came to mount Sinai. For God is
not as man, that He should be careful about
these things beforehand ; but His command-
ment was given, that they might know Him
Who is truly God, and His Word, and might
despise those which are falsely called gods,
which are not, but appear in outward show.
So He made Himself known to them in that
He brought them out of Egypt, and caused
them to pass through the Red Sea. But when
they chose to serve Baal, and dared to offer
sacrifices to those that have no existence, and
forgat the miracles which were wrought in their
behalf in Egypt, and thought of returning
thither again ; then indeed, after the law, that
commandment concerning sacrifices was or-
dained as law; so that with their mind, which
at one time had meditated on those which
are not, they might turn to Him Who is truly
God, and learn not, in the first place, to sacri-
fice, but to turn away their faces from idols,
and conform to what God commanded. For
-when He saith, *I have not spoken concerning
sacrifices, neither given commandment con-
I Is. i. 12 ; Jer. vii. 23.
ix. 10.
2 Heb. vi. i8.
3 lb. X. I ;
cerning whole burnt-offerings,' He immediately
adds, 'But this is the thing which I commanded
them, saying. Obey My voice, and I will be to
you a God, and ye shall be to Me a people,
and ye shall walk in all the ways that I com-
mand you*.' Thus then, being before in-
structed and taught, they learned not to do
service to any one but the Lord. They at-
tained to know what time the shadow should
last, and not to forget the time that was at
hand, in which no longer should the bullock of
the herd be a sacrifice to God, nor the ram of
the flock, nor the he-goats, but all these things
should be fulfilled in a purely spiritual manner,
and by constant prayer, and upright conver-
sation, with godly words ; as David sings,
'May my meditation be pleasing to Him.
Let my prayer be set forth before Thee as in-
cense, and the lifting up of my hands as the
evening sacrifice ^.' The Spirit also, who is in
him, commands, saying, ' Offer unto God the
sacrifice of praise, and pay to the Lord thy
vows. Offer the sacrifice of righteousness,
and put your trust in the Lord 7.'
5. Samuel, that great man, no less clearly
reproved Saul, saying, * Is not the word better
than a gift 7^ ? ' For hereby a man fulfils the
1-iw, and pleases God, as He saith, ' The sacri-
fice of praise shall glorify Me.' Let a man
'learn what this means, I will have mercy, and
not sacrifice ^,' and I will not condemn the
adversaries. But this wearied them, for they
were not anxious to understand, 'for had they
known, they would not have crucified the Lord
of glory9.' And what their end is, the prophet
foretold, crying, ' Woe unto their soul, for they
have devised an evil thought, saying, let us
bind the just man, because he is not pleasing
to us ^°. The end of such abandonment as
this can be nothing but error, as the Lord,
when reproving them, saith, 'Ye do err, not
knowing the Scriptures ".' Afterwards when,
being reproved, they should have come to their
senses, they rather grew insolent, saying, ' We
are Moses' disciples ; and we know that God
spake to Moses";' dealing the more falsely
by that very expression, and accusing them-
selves. For had they believed him to whom
they hearkened, they would not have denied
the Lord, Who spake by Moses, when He was
present. Not so did the eunuch in the Acts,
for when he heard, ' Understandest thou what
thou readest '3 ? ' he was not ashamed to con-
fess his ignorance, and implored to be taught.
Therefore, to him who became a learner, the j
grace of the Spirit was given. But as for those
4 Jer. vii. 22, 23. 5 Exod. xii. 5. * Ps. civ. 34 ; cxlL 2.
7 lb. 1. 14 ; iv. 5. 7" Ecclus. xviii. 17. 8 Ps, 1. 23 ;
Hosea vi. 6 ; Matt. ix. 13. 9 i Cor. ii. 8. " Is. iii. 9, 10;
Wisd. ii. 12. " Matt. xxii. 29. " John ix. 28, 29.
13 Acts viii. 30.
I
LETTER XIX. EASTER, 347.
547
Jews who persisted in their ignorance ; as the
proverb saith, ' Death came upon them. For
the fool dies in his sins '+.'
6. Like these too, are the heretics, who,
having fallen from true discernment, dare to
invent to themselves atheism. 'For the fool
saith in his heart. There is no God. They
are corrupt, and become abominable in their
doings '5/ Of such as are fools in their thoughts,
the actions are wicked, as He saith, 'can ye,
being evil, speak good things '^;' for they were
evil, because they thought wickedness. Or
how can those do just acts, whose minds are
set upon fraud ? Or how shall he love, who is
prepared beforehand to hate ? How shall he
be merciful, who is bent upon the love of
money? How shall he be chaste, who looks
upon a woman to lust after her ? ' For from
the heart proceed evil thoughts, fornications,
adulteries, murders '7.' By them the fool is
wrecked, as by the waves of the sea, being led
away and enticed by his fleshly pleasures;
for this stands written, 'AH flesh of fools is
greatly tempest-tossed ^' While he associates
witli folly, he is tossed by a tempest, and
perishes, as Solomon says in the Proverbs,
' The fool and he who lacketh understanding
shall perish together, and shall leave their
wealth to strangers ^' Now they suffer such
things, because there is not among them one
sound of mind to guide them. For where
there is sagacity, there the Word, who is the
Pilot of souls, is with the vessel ; ' for he that
hath understanding shall possess guidances;'
but they who are without guidance fall like
the leaves. Who has so completely fallen
away as Hymenaeus and Philetus, who held
evil opinions respecting the resurrection, and
concerning faith in it suffered shipwreck?
And Judas being a traitor, fell away from
the Pilot, and perished with the Jews*. But
the disciples since they were wise, and
therefore remained with the Lord, although
the sea was agitated, and the ship covered with
the waves, for there was a storm, and the wind
was contrary, yet fell not away. For they
awoke the Word, Who was sailing with them s,
and immediately the sea became smooth at
the command of its Lord, and they were saved.
They became preachers and teachers at the
same time ; relating the miracles of our Saviour,
and teaching us also to imitate their example.
These things were written on our account and
for our profit, so that through these signs we
may acknowledge the Lord Who wrought
them.
'4 Prov. xxiv. 9, LXX., cf. Ps. It. 15. »S Ps. xiv. i.
16 Matt. xii. 34. 17 lb. xv. 19. ' Prov. xxvi. 10, LXX.
a Not Proverbs, but Ps. xlix. 10. 3 Prov. i. 5, LXX.
4 Supr. Letter 7, § 9. 5 Mark iv. 37 — 41.
7. Let US, therefore, in the faith of the
disciples, hold frequent converse with our
Master. For the world is Hke the sea to us,
my brethren, of which it is written, ' This is
the great and wide sea, there go the ships;
the Leviathan, which Thou hast created to play
therein ^' We float on this sea, as with the
wind, through our OAvn free-will, for every one
directs his course according to his will, and
either, under the pilotage of the Word, he
enters into rest, or, laid hold on by pleasure,
he suffers shipwreck, and is in peril by storm.
For as in the ocean there are storms and
waves, so in the world there are many afflictions
and trials. The unbelieving therefore ' when
affliction or persecution ariseth is offended 7,'
as the Lord said. For not being confirmed in
the faith, and having his regard towards tem-
poral things, he cannot resist the difficulties
which arise from afflictions. But like that
house, built on the sand by the foolish man, so
he, being without understanding^, falls before
the assault of temptations, as it were by the
winds. But the saints, having their senses
exercised in self-possession 9, and being strong
in faith, and understanding the word, do not
faint under trials ; bul although, from time
to time, circumstances of greater trial are set
against them, yet they continue faithful, and
awaking the Lord Who is with them, they are
delivered. So, passing through water and fire,
they find relief and duly keep the feast, offer-
ing up prayers with thanksgiving to God
Who has redeemed them. For either being
tempted they are known, like Abraham, or
suffering they are approved, like Job, or being
oppressed and deceitfully treated, like Joseph,
they patiently endure it, or being persecuted,
they are not overtaken ; but as it is written,
through God they 'leap over the wall'°' of
wickedness, which divides and separates be-
tween brethren, and turns them from the truth.
In this manner the blessed Paul, when he took
pleasure in infirmities, in reproach, in neces-
sities, in persecutions, and in distresses for
Christ, rejoiced, and wished all of us to rejoice
saying, ' Rejoice always ; in everything give
thanks ".'
8. For what is so fitting for the feast, as
a turning from wickedness, and a pure conver-
sation, and prayer offered without ceasing to
God, with thanksgiving ? Therefore let us, my
brethren, looking forward to celebrate the
eternal joy in heaven, keep the feast here also,
rejoicing at all times, praying incessantly, and
in everything giving thanks to the Lord.
I give thanks to God, for those other wonders
He has done, and lor the various helps that
* Ps. civ. 25, 26. 7 Mark iv. 17. " Luke vi. 49.
9 Heb. V. 14. '° Ps. xviii. 29. " i Thess. 5. 18.
N n 2
548
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
have now been granted us, in that though He
hath chastened us sore, He did not dehver us
over to death, but brought us from a distance,
even as from th? ends of the earth, and hath
united us again with you. I have been mindful,
while I keep the feast, to give you also notice
of the great feast of Easter, that so we may go
up together, as it were, to Jerusalem, and eat
the Passover, not separately but as in one
house " ; let us not as sodden in water, water
down the word of God ; neither let us, as hav-
ing broken its bones, destroy the commands of
the Gospel. But as roasted with fire, with
bitterness, being fervent in spirit, in fastings
and watchings, with lying on the ground, let
us keep it witli penitence and thanksgiving.
9. We begin the fast of forty days on the
sixth day of Phamenoth (Mar. 2); and having
passed through that properly, with fasting and
prayers, we may be able to attain to the holy
day. For he who neglects to observe the fast
of forty days, as one who rashly and impurely
treads on holy things, cannot celebrate the
Easter festival. Further, let us put one another
in remembrance, and stimulate one another
not to be negligent, and especially that we
should fast those days, so that fasts may re-
ceive us in succession, and we may rightly
bring the feast to a close.
10. The fast of forty days begins then, as
was already said, on the sixth of Phamenoth
(Mar. 2), and the great week of the Passion on
the eleventh of Pharmuthi (Apr. 6). And let
us rest from the fast on the sixteenth of it
(Apr. 11), on the seventh day, late in the
evening. Let us keep the feast when the first
of the week dawns upon us, on the seventeenth
of the same month Pharmuthi (Apr. 12). Let
us then add, one after the other, the seven
holy weeks of Pentecost, rejoicing and prais-
ing God, that He hath by these things made
known to us beforehand, joy and rest ever-
lasting, prepared in heaven for us and for those
who truly believe in Christ Jesus our Lord;
through Whom, and with Whom, be glory and
dominion to the Father, with the Holy Ghost,
for ever and ever. Amen.
Salute one another with a holy kiss. The
brethren who are with me salute you.
^3 1 have also thought it necessary to in-
form you of the appointment of Bishops,
which has taken place in the stead of our
blessed fellow-ministers, that ye may know
to whom to write, and from whom ye
should receive letters. In Syene, therefore,
Nilammon, instead of Nilammon of the same
name. In Latopolis, Masis, instead of Am-
'2 Exod. xii. 8, 9, 46.
'3 Vid. Ltiter 2, note.
monius. In Coptos, Psenosiris ^4, instead of
Theodorus ^s. In Panopolis, because Artemi-
dorus ^^ desired it, on account of his old age,
and weakness of body, Arius is appointed co-
adjutor. In Hypsele, Arsenius, having become
reconciled to the Church. In Lycopolis, Eudae-
mon^7 in the stead of Plusianus^l In Anti-
noopolis, Arion^9, instead of Ammonius and Ty-
rannus^". In Oxyrynchus, Theodorus, instead
of Pelagius. In Nilopolis, instead of Theon,
Amatus', and Isaac, who are reconciled to each
other. In Arsenoitis, Andreas % instead of
Silvanus3. In Prosopitis, Triadelphus, in-
stead of Serapammonl In Diosphacus, on
the river side, Theodorus, instead of Sera-
pammon. In Sais, Paphnutius, instead of
Nemesion. In Xois, Theodorus, instead of
Anubion ; and there is also with him Isidorus,
who is reconciled to the Church. In Seth-
roitis, Orion 5, instead of Potammon^. In
Clysma, Tithonas ?, instead of Jacob ; and
there is with him Paulus, who has been recon-
ciled to the Church.
LETTER XX.
(For 348.)
Coss. PktHppus, Salia ; Frqfect the same Nes-
torius ; Indict, vi ; Easter-day in Nbn. Apr.,
via Phannuthi ; JEra Diodet. 64; Moon
18.
Let us now keep the feast, my brethren,
for as our Lord then gave notice to His
disciples, so He now tells us beforehand, that
'after some days is the Passover',' in which
the Jews indeed betrayed the Lord, but we
celebrate His death as a feast, rejoicing be-
cause we then obtained rest from our afflic-
tions. We are diligent in assembling ourselves
together, for we were scattered in time past
and were lost, and are found. We were far
off, and are brought nigh, we were strangers,
and have become His, Who suffered for us,
and was nailed on the cross, Who bore our
sins, as the prophet" saith, and was afflicted
for us, that He might put away from all of us
grief, and sorrow, and sighing. When we
thirst. He satisfies us on the feast-day itself,
standing and crying, ' If any man thirst, let
him come to Me, and drinks' For such is the
love of the saints at all times, that they never
once leave off, but offer the uninterrupted,
constant sacrifice to the Lord, and continually
thirst, and ask of Him to drinks ; as David
sang, *My God, my God, early will I seek
M Sup: p. 127? IS Supr. p. 142. 16 Supr. p. 136, &c
17 p. 127 y i« p. 136. '9 p. 127? 20 p. i^^2. I p. 127.
2 Cf. Tom. ad Ant. 10. 3 Supr. Letter 12. 4 pp. 127, 273.
5 p. 127. 6 p. 273. 7 Tithoes, p. 127. » Matt. xxvi. 2.
»• Isa. liii. 4. 2 John vii. 37.
3 Cf- Letter vii. 5 — 7. The striking similarity between the
seventh and the tYv^entieth Letters has been already noticed.
LETTER XXIV. EASTER, 352.
549
Thee, my soul thirsteth for Thee; many times
my heart and flesh longeth for Thee in a
barren land, without a path, and without
water. Thus was I seen by Thee in the sanc-
tuary*.' And Isaiah the prophet says, 'From
the night my spirit seeketh Thee early, O God,
because Thy commandments are lights.' And
another says, 'My soul fainteth for the longing
it hath for Thy judgments at all times.' And
again he says, ' For Thy judgments I have
hoped, and Thy law will I keep at all times ^'
Another boldly cries out, saying, * Mine eye is
ever towards the Lord.' And with him one
says, ' The meditation of my heart is before
Thee at all times.' And Paul further advises,
' At all times give thanks ; pray without ceas-
ing 7.' Those who are thus continually engaged,
are waiting entirely on the Lord, and say, ' Let
us follow on to know die Lord : we shall find
Him ready as the morning, and He will come
to us as the early and the latter rain for the
earth^.' For not only does He satisfy them
in the morning; neither does He give them
only as much to drink as they ask ; but He
gives them abundantly according to the multi-
tude of His loving-kindness, vouchsafing to
them at all times the grace of the Spirit.
And what it is they thirst for He immediately
adds, saying, ' He that believeth on Me.' For,
' as cold waters are pleasant to those who are
thirsty?,' according to the proverb, so to those
who believe in the Lord, the coming of the
Spirit is better than all refreshment and de-
light.
2. It becomes us then in these days of the
Passover, to rise early with the saints, and ap-
proach the Lord with all our soul, with purity
of body, with confession and godly faith in
Him ; so that when we have here first drunk,
and are filled with these divine waters which
[flow] from Him, we may be able to sit at
table with the saints in heaven, and may share
m the one voice of gladness which is there.
From this sinners, because it wearied them,
are rightly cast out, and hear the words,
'Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having
a wedding garment"?' Sinners indeed thirst,
but not for the grace of the Spirit ; but being
inflamed with wickedness, they are wholly set
on fire by pleasures, as saith the Proverb,
' All day long he desires evil desires.' But the
Prophet cries against them, saying, ' Wo unto
those who rise up early, and follow strong
drink ; who continue until the evening, for
wine inflameth them".' And since they run
wild m wantonness, they dare to thirst for the
4 Ps. Ixiii. I, 2, LXX. 5 Is. xxvi. 9.
7 lb. XXV. IS ; xix. 14 ; i Thess. v. 17.
9 John vii. 38 ; Prov. xxv. 25.
»' Prov. xxi. 26; Is. V. II.
* Ps. cxix. 20, 43, 44.
8 Hos. vi. 3.
»<» Matt. xxii. 12.
destruction of others. Having first, drunk
of lying and unfaithful waters, those things
have come upon them, which are stated by
the Prophet ; ' My wound,' saith he, ' is griev-
ous, whence shall I be healed ; it hath surely
been to me like deceitful waters, in which
there is no trust".' Secondly, while they drink
with their com]>anions, they lead astray and
disturb the right mind, and turn away the
simple from it. And what does he cry ?
' Wo unto him who causeth his neighbour
to drink turbid destruction, and maketh
him drunk, that he may look upon his
caverns '3.' But those who dissemble, and
steal away the truth, quench their hearts.
Having first drunk of these things, they go on
to say those things which the whore saith in
the Proverbs, ' Lay hold with delight on hidden
bread, and sweet stolen waters'*.' They lay
snares secretly, because they have not the
freedom of virtue, nor the boldness of Wis-
dom'-\ who praises herself in the gates, and
employs freedom of speech in the broad ways,
preaching on high walls. For this reason,
they are bidden to 'lay hold with delight'^,'
because, having the choice between faith and
pleasures, they steal the sweetness of trutli, and
disguise their own bitter waters [to escape]
from the blame of their wickedness, which
would have been speedy and public. On this
account, the wolf puts on the skin of the
sheep, sepulchres deceive by their whitened
exteriors '7. Satan, that is '^
From LETTER XXIP9.
(For 350.)
Where our Lord Jesus Christ, who took
upon Him to die for all, stretched forth
His hands, not somewhere on the earth be-
neath, but in the air itself, in order that the
Salvation effected by the Cross might be
shewn to be for all men everywhere : destroy-
ing the devil who was working in the air : and
that He might consecrate our road up to
Heaven, and make it free.
From LETl'ER XXIV ^9.
(For 352.)
And at that time when they went forth and
crossed over Egypt, their enemies were the,
sport of the sea ; but now, when we pass ovtrj
" Jer. XV. 18. '3 Hab. ii. 15, LXX. '♦ Prov. ix. 17.
'5 lb. viii. 2. «6 Cf. Leiter vii. § 5. '7 Matt. vii. 15 :
xxiii. 27.
18 The Syriac MS. (which is imperlect) ends here. The frng-
ments that foll.iw are derived from different sources, mention
whereof is made in the notes.
19 The above fragments are from Cosmas Indicopleustes : the
Greek in Migne xxvi. 1432, sgf.
550
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
from earth to Heaven, Satan himself hence-
forth falls like lightning from Heaven.
From LETTER XXVII.
(For 355.)
From the twenty-sevefith Festal Letter of Athana-
sius^ Bishop of Alexajidria and Confessor ;
of which the commencement is, ' Again the
season of the day of the living Passover ^'
For who is our joy and boast, but our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who suffered for us,
and by Himself made known to us the Father ?
For He is no other than He Who of old time
spake by the Prophets ; but now He saith to
every man, ' I Who speak am near^' Right
well is this word spoken, for He does not at one
time speak, at another keep silence ; but con-
tinually and at all times, from the beginning
without ceasing. He raises up every man, and
speaks to every man in his heart.
From LETTER XXVIII 3.
(For 356.)
... In order that while He might become
a sacrifice for us all, we, nourished up in the
words of truth, and partaking of His living
doctrine, might be able with the saints to
receive also the joy of Heaven. For thither, as
He called the disciples to the upper chamber,
so does the Word call us with them to the
divine and incorruptible banquet; having
suffered for us here, but there, preparing the
heavenly tabernacles for those who most readi-
ly hearken to the summons, and unceasingly,
and [gazing] at the goal, pursue the prize of
their high calling ; where for them who come
to the banquet, and strive with those who
hinder them, there is laid up both a crown, and
incorruptible joy. For even though, humanly
speaking, the labour of such a journey is great,
yet the Saviour Himselt has rendered even it
light and kindly.
Another Fragment.
But let us, brethren, who have received the
vineyard from the Saviour, and are invited to
the heavenly banquet, inasmuch as the Feast is
now drawing nigh, take the branches of the
palm 4 trees, ana proving conquerors of sin, let
us too like those, who on that occasion went to
» The fragment here given of the twenty-seventh Letter, as
well as fragments of the twenty-ninth and forty-fourth, are from
Syriac translations, discovered by Mr. Cureton as quoted by
Severus Patriarch of Antioch, in his work against Johannes Gram-
maticus contained in the Syriac collection of the British Museum
(Cod. Add. 12, 157, fol. 202), and published by him with the
preceding Letters. Their style would argue them to be part of
the s.ime tr.inslation. z John iv. 26.
3 From Cosmas, see Migne xxvi. p. 1433. 4 John xii. 13.
meet the Saviour, make ourselves ready by our
conduct, both to meet Him when He comes,
and to go in with Him and partake of the im-
mortal food, and from thenceforth live eternally
in the heavens.
From LETTER XXIX«,
(For 357.)
From the twenty-ninth Letter, of which the begin-
ning is, ' Sufficient for this present time is
that which we have already written.'
The Lord proved the disciples % when He
was asleep on the pillow, at which time a
miracle was wrought, which is especially calcu-
lated to put even the wicked to shame. For
when He arose, and rebuked the sea, and
silenced the storm. He plainly shewed two
things ; that the storm of the sea was not from
the winds, but from fear of its Lord Who
walked upon it, and that the Lord Who
rebuked it was not a creature, but rather its
Creator, since a creature is not obedient to an-
other creature. For although the Red Sea was
divided before by Moses3, yet it was not Moses
who did it, for it came to pass, not because he
spake, but because God commanded. And if
the sun stood still in Gibeon \ and the moon
in the valley of Ajalon, yet this was the work,
not of the son of Nun, but of the Lord, Who
heard his prayer. He it was Who both rebuked
the sea, and on the cross caused the sun to be
darkened 5.
Another Fragment ^
And whereas what is human comes to an
end, what is divine does not. For which
reason also when we are dead, and when our
nature is tired out, he raises us up, and leads
us up [though] born of earth to heaven.
Another Fragment 7.
Here begins a letter of S. Athanasius, Bishop
of Alexandria, to his children. May God com-
fort you. I know moreover that not only this
thing saddens you, but also the fact that while
others have obtained the churches by violence,
you are meanwhile cast out from your places.
For they hold the places, but you the Apos-
tolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places,
but outside of the true Faith ; while you are
» If these fragments are authentic, the statement in xhf: Index,
that this year no letter could be sent, is an error.
* Mark iv. 37^41. 3 Exod. xiv. 21. 4 Josh. x. la.
5 Matt, xxvii. 45. * From Cos.mas ; Migne xxvi. 1436.
7 The following fragment (Migne, ib. p. 1189), was published
by Montiaucon from a Colbertine Latin MS. of about 800 a.d.
He conjectured that it belonged to a Festal Letter. On this
hypothesis, which is, however, as Mai observes, by no means
self-evident, we append it to the above fragments of Letter 29,
since internal evidence connects it with the handing over of the
churches at Ale.x^dria to the_ partisans of George, June, 356.
At any rate, in spitePof the heading of the fragment, its beginning
is clearly not preserved.
LETTER XXXIX. EASTER, 2>^7.
551
outside the i^laces indeed, but the Faith, within
you. Let us consider whether is the greater,
the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith.
Who then has lost more, or who possesses
more? He who holds the place, or he who
holds the Faith ? Good indeed is the place,
when the Apostolic Faith is preached there,
holy is it if the Holy One dwell there. {After
a little .•) But ye are blessed, who by faith are in
the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the
faith, and have full satisfaction, even the
highest degree of faith which remains among
you unshaken. For it has come down to you
from Apostolic tradition, and frequently has
accursed envy wished to unsettle it, but has
not been able. On the contrary, they have
rather been cut off by their attempts to do so.
For this is it that is written, * Thou art the Son
of the Living God ^' Peter confessing it by
revelation of the Father, and being told,
' Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and
blood did not reveal it to thee, but ' My Father
Who is in heaven,' and the rest. No one
therefore will ever prevail against your Faith,
most beloved brethren. For if ever God shall
give back the churches (for we think He will)
yet without 9 such restoration of the churches
the Faith is sufficient for us. And lest, speak-
ing without the Scriptures, I should [seem to]
speak too strongly, it is well to bring you to the
testimony of Scriptures, for recollect that the
Temple indeed was at Jerusalem • the Temple
was not deserted, aliens had invaded it, whence
also the Temple being at Jerusalem, those
exiles went down to Babylon by the judgment
of God, who was proving, or rather correcting
them ; while manifesting to them in their ignor-
ance punishment [by means] of blood-thirsty
enemies ^°. And ahens indeed had held the
Place, but knew not the Lord of the Place,
while in that He neither gave answer nor spoke,
they were deserted by the truth. What profit
then is the Place to them ?
For behold they that hold the Place are
charged by them that love God with making it
a den of thieves, and with madly making the
Holy Place a house of merchandise, and a
house of judicial business for themselves to
whom it was unlawful to enter there. For this
and worse than this is what we have heard,
most beloved, from those who are come from
thence. However really, then, they seem to
hold the church, so much the more truly are
they cast out. And they think themselves to
be within the truth, but are exiled, and in
captivity, and [gain] no advantage by the
church alone. For the truth of things is
judged . . .
B Matt.xvi. i6, 17. 9 Text corrupt. '° Lat. somewhat obscure.
From LETTER XXXIX.
(For 367.)
Of the particular books and their number, which
are accepted by the Church. From the thirty-
ninth Letter of Holy Athanasius, Bishop of
Alexandria, on the Paschal festival ; wherein
he defines canonically what are the divine books
which are accepted by the Church.
. . . . T. They have' fabricated books which
they call books of tables % in which they shew
stars, to which they give the names of Saints.
And therein of a truth they have inflicted
on themselves a double reproach : those who
have written such books, because they have
perfected themselves in a lying and con-
temptible science; and as to the ignorant
and simple, they have led them astray by evil
thoughts concerning the right faith established
in all truth and upright in the presence of God.
.... 2. But^'' since we have made mention of
heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing
tlie Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since
I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians 3,
some few of the simple should be beguiled
from their simplicity and purity, by the subtilty
of certain men, and should henceforth read
other books — those called apocryphal — led
astray by the similarity of their names with
the true books ; I beseech you to bear pa-
tiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance,
of matters with which you are acquainted, in-
fluenced by the need and advantage of the
Church.
3. In proceeding to make mention of these
things, I shall adopt, to coinmend my under-
taking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist,
saying on my own account : ' Forasmuch as
some have taken in hand ■♦,' to reduce into
order for themselves the books termed apo-
cryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely
inspired Scripture, concerning which we have
been fully persuaded, as they who from the
beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of
the Word, delivered to the fathers ; it seemed
' This section is preserved in the Coptic (Memphitic) Life
of S. Theodore (Amelineau Ann. du Musee Guimet. xvii. p. 239).
Its contents and the context in which it is quoted appear decisive
for its identilication as part of Letter 39. But the Letter from
which the fragment comes is staled in ttie context to have been
received by Theodore in the spring previous to his death. If
Theodore died in 364, as seems probable on other grounds (see
p. 569, note 3), the speech from which our fragment cunies must
have been written for hin by his biographer. This is not unlikely,
nor does it throw any suspicion on the genuineness of the fragment
itself.
2 Copt. anoypaiifLuv '. astrological charts or tables appear to be
meant.
2" Theremainder of the thirty-ninth Letter has long been before
the world, having been preserved, with the heading of the Letter,
HI the original G.eek, by Theodorus Balsamon. It may be lound
in the first volume of the Benedictine edition of the works of
S. Athan. torn. i. p. 767. ed. 1777. [Migne, udi su/ra]. A Syriac
translation of it was discovered by Cureton in an anonymous
Commentary on the Scriptures in the collection of the British
Museum (Cod. 12, 168). This translation commences only at tbo
quotation from S. Luke. The Syriac is apparently the work of
a different translator. 3 a Cor. xi. 3. * Luke i. i.
552
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
good to me also, having been urged thereto
by true brethren, and having learned from
the beginning, to set before you the books in-
cluded in the Canon, and handed down, and
accredited as Divine ; to the end that any one
who has fallen into error may condemn those
who have led him astray; and that he who
has continued stedfast in purity may again
rejoice, having these things brought to his
remembrance.
4. There are, then, of the Old Testament,
twenty-two books in number ; for, as I have
heard, it is handed down that this is the number
of the letters among the Hebrews ; their re-
spective order and names being as follows.
The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Levi-
ticus, after that Numbers, and then Deutero-
nomy. Following these there is Joshua, the
son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And
again, after these four books of Kings, the first
and second being reckoned as one book, and
so likewise the third and fourth as one book.
And again, the first and second of the Chron-
icles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra,
the first and second +' are similarly one book.
After these there is the book of Psalms, then
the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song
of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the
twelve being reckoned as one book. Then
Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch,
Lamentations, ands the epistle, one book;
afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one
book. Thus far constitutes the Old Tes-
tament.
5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the
[books] of the New Testament. These are,
the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the
Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven,
viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John,
three ; after these, one of Jude. In addition,
there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in
this order. The first, to the Romans ; then
two to the Corinthians ; after these, to the
Galatians ; next, to the Ephesians ; then to
the Philippians ; then to the Colossians ; after
these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to
the Hebrews ; and again, two to Timothy ;
one to I'itus; and lastly, that to Philemon.
And besides, the Revelation of John.
6. These are fountains of salvation, that
they who thirst may be satisfied with the living
words they contain. In these alone is pro-
claimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no
man add to these, neither let him take ought
from these. For concerning these the Lord
put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ' Ye do
4» i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah.
5 i.e. Baruch vi. — The Sj'riac has the conjunction, which is
reje.tcd by the Benedictine editors.
err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And He
reproved the Jews, saying, ' Search the Scrip-
tures, for these are they that testify of Me ^.'
7. But for greater exactness I add this
also, writing of necessity ; that there are other
books besides these not indeed included in the
Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be
read by those who newly join us, and who wish
for instruction in the word of godliness. The
Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of
Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit,
and that which is called the Teaching of the
Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former,
my brethren, are included in the Canon, the
latter being [merely] read ; nor is there in any
place a mention of apocryphal writings. But
they are an invention of heretics, who write
them when they choose, bestowing upon them
their approbation, and assigning to them a date,
that so, using them as ancient writings, they
may find occasion to lead astray the simple.
From LETTER XL?.
(For 368.)
* Ye are they that have continued with Me
in My temptations ; and I appoint unto you a
kingdom, as My Father hath appointed unto
Me, that ye may eat and drink at My table in
My kingdom ^' Being called, then, to the
great and heavenly Supper, in that upper
room which has been swept, let us ' cleanse
ourselves,' as the Apostle exhorted, ' from all
fikhiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting
holiness in the fear of God^;' that so, being
spotless within and without, — without, clothing
ourselves with temperance and justice; within,
by the Spirit, rightly dividing the word of truth
— we may hear, ' Enter into the joy of thy
Lord 3.'
From LETTER XLIL
(For 370.)
For we have been called, brethren, and are
now called together, by Wisdom, and according
to the Evangelical parable, to that great and
heavenly Supper, and sufficient for every crea-
ture ; I mean, to the Passover, — to Christ,
Who is sacrificed ; for ' Christ our Passover
is sacrificed.' {And afterwards:) They, there-
fore, that are thus prepared shall hear, * Enter
into the joy of thy Lord *.'
From LETTER XLIIL
(For 371.)
Of us, then, whose also is the Passover, the
calling is from above, and ' our conversation
6 Matt. xxii. 29 ; John v. 39.
7 The following fragments are, except Letter 44, preserved in
the original Greek, by Cosmas (Migne xxvi. 1440 sgq.).
I Luke xxii. 2|^— 30. ^ 2 Cor. vii. i. 3 Matt. xxv. 21.
4 tb and i Cor. v. v.
LETTER XLV. EASTER, 373.
553
is in heaven,' as Paul says ; * For we have
here no abiding city, but we seek that which
is to comes,' whereto, also, looking forward,
we properly keep the feast. {And again,
afterwards ■) Heaven truly is high, and its
distance from us infinite ; for ' the heaven
of heavens,' says he, 'is the Lord's^.' But
not, on that account, are we to be negligent
or fearful, as though the way thereto were
impossible ; but rather should we be zealous.
Yet not, as in the case of those who formerly,
removing from the east and finding a plain in
Senaar, began [to build a tower], is there need
for us to bake bricks with fire, and to seek
slime for mortar; for their tongues were
confounded, and their work was destroyed.
But for us the Lord has consecrated a
way through His blood, and has made it
easy. {And again:) For not only has He
afforded us consolation respecting the dis-
tance, but also in that He has come and
opened the door for us which was once shut.
For, indeed, it was shut from the time He cast
out Adam from the delight of Paradise, and
set the Cherubim and the flaming sword, that
turned every way, to keep the way of the tree
of life — now, however, opened wide. And He
that sitteth upon the Cherubim having ap-
peared with greater grace and loving-kindness,
icd into Paradise with himself the thief who
confessed, and having entered heaven as our
forerunner, opened the gates to all. {And
again :) Paul also, ' pressing toward the mark
for the prize of the high calling 7, ' by it was
taken up to the third heaven, and having seen,
those things which are above, and then de-
scended, he teaches us, announcing what is
written to the Hebrews, and saying, ' For ye
are not come unto the mount that might be
touched, and that burned with fire, and clouds,
and darkness, and a tempest, and to the voice
of words. But ye are come unto Mount Sion,
and unto the city of the living God, the hea-
venly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable com-
pany of angels, and to the general assembly
and Church of the first-born, which are written
in heaven ^.' Who would not wish to enjoy
the high companionship with these ! Who
not desire to be enrolled with these, that he
may hear with them, ' Come, ye blessed of
My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for
you from the foundation of the world 9.'
From LETTER XLIV.
(For 372.)
And agaiti, from the forty fourth Letter, of
which the commencement is, ' All that our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did instead
of us and for us '.'
When therefore the servants of the Chief
Priests and the Scribes saw these things, and
heard from Jesus, 'Whosoever is athirst, let
him come to Me and drink ^;' they perceived
that this was not a mere man like themselves,
but that this was He Who gave water to the
saints, and that it was He Who was announced
by the prophet Isaiah. For He was truly the
splendour of the light 3, and the Word of God.
And thus as a river from the fountain he
gave drink also of old to Paradise ; but now
to all men He gives the same gift of the
Spirit, and says, ' If any man thirst, let him
come to Me and drink.' Whosoever ' be-
lieveth on Me, as saith the Scripture, rivers of
living water shall flow out of his belly •♦.' This
was not for man to say, but for the living
God, Who truly vouchsafes life, and gives the
Holy Spirit
From LETTER XLV.
(For 373.)
Let us all take up our sacrifices, observing
distribution to the poor, and enter into the
holy place, as it is written ; ' whither also our
forerunner Jesus is entered for us, having ob-
tained eternal redemptions.' . . . i^From the
same:) . . . And this is a great proof that,
whereas we were strangers, we are called
friends ; from being formerly aliens, we are
become fellow-citizens with the saints, and
are called children of the Jerusalem which is
above, whereof that which Solomon built was
a type. For if Moses made all things ac-
cording to the pattern shewed him in the
mount, it is clear that the service performed
in the tabernacle was a type of the heavenly
mysteries, whereto the Lord, desirous that we
should enter, prepared for us the new and
abiding way. And as all the old things were
a type of the new, so the festival that now is,
is a type of the joy which is above, to which
coming with psalms and spiritual songs, let us
begin the fasts ^.
5 Phil. iii. 20 Heb. xiji. 14. 6 Ps. cxv. x6. 7 Phil. iii. 14.
Heb. xil 18— 23. S Matt. xxv. 34.
1 See Letter 27, note I. * John vii. 37. 3 Cf. Heb. i. 3.
4 John vii. 37, 38. 5 Heb. vi. ao; ix. 12.
6 This fragment is the latest writing of .\thanasius that we
possess.
554
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
II. PERSONAL LETTERS.
LETTER XLVI.
Letter'^ to the Mareotis from Sardica^
A.D. 343-4.
Athanasius to the presbyters and deacons
and the people of the CathoHc Church in the
Mareotis, brethren beloved and longed for,
greeting in the Lord.
The holy council has praised your piety
in Christ. They have all acknowledged your
spirit and fortitude in all things, in that ye did
not fear threats, and though you had to bear
insults and persecutions against your piety you
held out. Your letters when read out to all
produced tears and enlisted universal sym-
pathy. They loved you though absent, and
reckoned your persecutions as their own. Their
letter to you is a proof of their affection : and
although it would suffice to include you along
with the holy Church of Alexandria^, yet the
holy synod has written separately to you in
order that ye may be encouraged not to give
way on account of your sufferings, but to give
thanks to God ; because your patience shall
have good fruit.
Formerly the character of the heretics was
not evident. But now it is revealed and laid
open to all. For the holy synod has taken
cognisance of the calumnies these men have
concocted against you, and has had tliem in
abhorrence, and has deposed Theodore, Valens,
Ursacius, in Alexandria 3 and the Mareotis by
consent of all. The same notice has been
given to other Churches also. And since the
cruelty and tyranny practised by them against
the Churches can no longer be borne, they
have been cast out from the episcopate and
expelled from the communion of all. More-
over of Gregory they were unwilling even to
make mention, for since the man has lacked
the very name of bishop, they thought it super-
fluous to name him. But on account of those
who are deceived by him they have mentioned
his name ; not because he seemed worthy of
mention, but that those deceived by him
might thereby recognise his infamy and blush
» This and the following letters were first printed by Scipio
Maffei from a Latin MS. in the Chapter Library of Verona, alung
witn the Historia Acephala. Xliey were included in Galland,
Bibl. Pair. vol. 5, and in Jiistiniani's Ed. of Athanasius (Padua,
1777). The letters are printed in Migiie, xxvi. 1333, sqg., along
with one (trom the same source) addressed by the Council to the
Mareatic Churches. Hefele doubts their genuineness, but without
reason (ii. 166, E. Tra.) The list ot signatures (an independent
source of information, supr. p. 147) alone proves the contrary.
The two letters may be taken as a supplement to the documents
given, AJiol. c. Ar. 37 — 50 (see also p. 147), with which they have
many points of resemblance. The Latin is very bad and occasion-
ally without sense ; it bears clear traces of being a rendering by
an unskilful hand from Greek.
2 In the letter referred to in note 1.
3 i.e. has given notice to those places of their deposition
at the kind of man with whom they have com-
municated. You will learn what has been
written about them from the previous docu-
ment-*: and though not all of the bishops
came together to sign, yet it was drawn up by
all, and they signed for all. Salute one another
with a holy kiss. All the brethren salute you.
I, Protogenes 5, bishop, desire that you may be
preserved in the Lord, beloved and longed for.
I,Athenodorus*,bishop,desirethatyemay be
preserved in the Lord, most beloved brethren.
[Other signatures] Julian, Ammonius, Aprianus,
Marcellus, Gerontius*, Porphyrins*, Zosimus,
Asclepius, Appian, Eulogius, Eugenius, Lio-
dorus (26), Martyrius, Eucarpus, Lucius*,
Caloes. Maxim us : by letters from the Gauls
I desire that ye may be preserved in the Lord,
beloved. We, Arcidamus and Philoxenus,
presbyters, and Leo a deacon, from Rome,
desire that ye may be preserved. I, Gaudentius,
bishop of Naissus, desire that ye may be pre-
served in the Lord. [Also] Florentius of
Meria in Pannonia, Ammianus (9), of Cas-
tellum in Pannonia, Januarius of Beneventum,
Praetextatus of Narcidonum in Pannonia, Hy-
perneris (48) of Hypata in Thessaly, Castus
of Caesaraugusta, Severus of Calcisus in Thes-
saly, Julian of Therae Heptapolis ^, Lucius of
Verona, Eugenius (35) of Hecleal Cycbinae?,
Zosimus (92) of Lychnis Sunosion in Apulia^,
Hermogenes of Syceon9, Thryphos of Magara,
Paregorius* of Caspi, Caloes {21) of Castro-
martis, Ireneus of Syconis, Macedonius of
Lypianum, Martyrius of Naupacti, Palladius of
Dius, Broseus (87) of Lu[g]dunum in Gaul,
Ursacius of Brixia, Amantius of Viminacium,
by the presbyter Maximus, Alexander of Gy-
para in Achaia, Eutychius of Mothona, Apri-
anus of Petavio in Pannonia, Antigonus of
Pallene in Macedonia, Dometius * of Acaria
Constantias, Olympius of Enorodope '°, Zosi-
mus of Oreomarga, Protasius of Milan, Mark
of Siscia on the Save, Eucarpus of Opus in
Achaia, Vitalis * of Vertara in Africa, Helianus
of Tyrtana, Symphorus of Herapythae in Crete,
Mosinius (64) of Heracla, Eucissus of Chis^-
mus ", Cydonius of Cydonia ".
4 The letter of the Council.
5 For the probably correct names and sees, see p. 147, sg. The
asterisk denotes signatories of the letter of the Council to the
Mareotis, the numbers in brackets denote those of the list on
pp. 147, sq.
6 Thera was divided into seven districts. Herod, iv. 153.
7 These two sees are a puzzle.
8 Prot'ably Canu-ium, the name of Stercorius being lost,
lurks in this corruption. 9 InGalatia?
10 .(Eni in Thrace. D.C.B. iv. 75 (3].
'» In Crete, near Cydonia.
" 59 signatures, to which add Stercorius (note 8) and Atha>
nasius, making 61.
XLVII. AD ECCLESIAM ALEXANDRINE.
555
LETTER XLVIL
To the Church of Alexandria on the same
occasion.
Athanasius to all the presb) ters and dea-
cons of the holy Catholic Church at Alex-
andria and the Parembola, brethren most
beloved, greeting.
In writing this I must begin my letter, most
beloved brethren, by giving thanks to Christ.
But now this is especially fitting, since both
many things and great, done by the Lord,
deserve our thanks', and those who be-
lieve in Him ought not to be ungrateful
for His many benefits. We thank the Lord
therefore, who always manifests us to all in the
faith, who also has at this time done many
wonderful things for the Church. For what the
heretical party of Eusebius and heirs of Arius
have maintained and spread abroad, all the
bishops who assembled have pronounced false
and fictitious. And the very men who are
thought terrible by many, like those who are
called giants, were counted as nothing, and
rightly so, for just as the darkness is il-
luminated when light comes, so, iniquity is
unveiled by the coming of the just, and when
the good are present, the worthless are ex-
posed.
For you yourselves, beloved, are not ignorant
what the successors of the ill-named heresy of
Eusebius did, namely Theodore, Narcissus,
Valens, Ursacius, and the worst of them all,
George, Stephen, Acacias, Menophantus, and
their colleagues, for their madness is manifest
to all ; nor has it escaped your observation
what they committed against the Churches.
For you were the first they injured, your
Church the first they tried to corrupt. But
they who did so many great things, and were,
as I said above, terrible to the minds of all,
have been so frightened as to pass all imagina-
tion. For not only did they fear the Roman
Synod, not only when invited to it did they
excuse themselves, but, now also having ar-
rived at Sardica, so conscience-stricken were
they, that when they had seen the judges, they
were astonished. So they fainted in their
minds. Verily, one might say to them: 'Death,
where is thy sting, Death, where is thy victory?'
For neither did it go as they wished, for them
to give judgment as they pleased, this time they
could not over-reach whom they would. But
they saw faithful men, that cared for justice,
nay rather, they saw our Lord Himself among
them, hke the demons of old from the tombs ;
for being sons of falsehood, they could not
bear to see the truth. So Theodore, Narcissus,
and Ursacius, with their friends said as
follows^ : ' Stay, what have we to do with
you, men of Christ? We know that you arc
true, and fear to be convicted : we shrink
from confessing cur calumnies to your face.
We have nothing to do with you ; for you are
Christians, while we are foes to Christ; and
while with you truth is powerful, we have
learned to over reach. We thouLrht our deeds
were hid ; we did not think that we were now
coming to judgment ; why do you expose our
deeds before their time ; and by exposing us
vex us before the day?' and although they
are of the worst character and walk in dark-
ness, yet they have learnt at last that there is
no agreement between light and darkness, and
no concord between Christ and Belial. Ac-
cordingly, beloved brethren, since they knew
what they had done, and saw their victims 3
ready as accusers, and the witnesses before
their eyes, they followed the example of
Cain and fled like him; in that they greatly
wandered +, for they imitated his flight, and
so have received his condemnation. For
the holy council knows their works ; it has
heard our blood crying aloud, heard from
themselves the voices of the wounded. All
the Bishops know how they have sinned,
and how many things they have done against
our Churches and others; and accordingly
they have expelled these men from the
Churches like Cain. For who did not weep
when your letter was read? who did not
groan to see whom those men had exiled?
Who did not reckon your tribulations his own ?
Most beloved brethren, you suff"ered formerly
when they were committing evil against you,
and perhaps it is no long time since the war
has ceased. Now, however, all the Bishops
who assembled and heard what you have
sufiered, grieved and lamented just as you
did when you suffered the injuries and 5 they
shared your grief at that time ....
On account of these deeds then, and all the
others which they have committed against the
Churches, the holy general council has de-
posed them all, and not only has judged them
ahens from the Church, but has held them
« Latin hardly translateable.
9 Cf. Hist. Ar. and Introd. Fialon, p. 309, remarks on the
uncritical adoption (by Fleury and his plagiarist Rohibacher) of
these satirical colloquies as an authentic account of wfcat was
'''^'s^at! 'qusecunque miserrimos videntes accusatores, testes
Dra: oculis habentes :' apparently a barbarous rendering of iScrts
Jcal ToOs irap' avjiiv iraWo^ras, Tous KOTTjyopous, tous tAtyxous ^po
iAfloAfiwi' ixoi>7t<;, as in A/>et. Ar. 45. , . , , „. r„.
4 'Granditer erraveruiit,' either for y.aKpa.v aviityyov. or for
<,d,66pa eirAwi^tATjaa.-: no verb elsewhere used in this comieUioQ
in Athanasius exactly corresponds to erraverunt, nor is the Hiyht
to Philippopolis elsewhere compared, as here, to that ol Cam.
But the Tatter comparison is often used by Ath. in other con-
""s'mi's . . . erat dolor communis illo tempore quo processistis
The Latin has quite lost tl e sense.
55^
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
unworthy to be called Christians. For how
can men be called Christians who deny Christ?
And how can men be admitted to church who
do evil against the Churches? Accordingly,
the holy council has sent to the Churches
everywhere, that they may be marked among
all, so that they who were deceived by them
may now return to full assurance and truth.
Do not therefore fail, beloved brethren ; like
servants of God, and professors of the faith of
Christ, be tried in the Lord, and let not tribula-
tion cast you down, neither let troubles caused
by the heretics who plot against you make you
sad. For you have the sympathy of the whole
world in your grief, and what is more, it bears
you all in mind. Now I think that those de-
ceived by them will, when they see the severe
sentence of the Council, turn aside from them
and reject their impiety. If, however, even
after this their hand is lifted up, do you not
be astonished, nor fear if they rage ; but pray
and raise your hands to God, and be sure
that the Lord will not tarry but will perform all
things according to your will. I could wish
indeed to write you a longer letter with a de-
tailed account of what has taken place, but
since the presbyters and deacons are compe-
tent to tell you in person of all they have seen,
I have refrained from writing much. One
thing alone I charge you, considering it a
necessity, that having the fear of the Lord
before your eyes you will put Him first, and
carry on all things with your wonted concord
as men of wisdom and understanding. Pray
for us, bearing in mind the necessities of the
widows^, especially since the enemies of truth
have taken away what belongs to them. But
let your love overcome the malice of the
heretics. For we believe that according to
your prayers the Lord will be gracious and
permit me to see you speedily. Meanwhile
you will learn the proceedings at the Synod by
what all the Bishops have written to you, and
from the appended letter you will perceive the
deposition of Theodore, Narcissus, Stephen,
Acacius, George, Menophantus, Ursacius and
Valens. For Gregory they did not wish to
mention : since they thought it superfluous to
name a man who lacked the very name of
bishop. Yet for the sake of those deceived
by him they have mentioned his name, not
that his name was worthy of mention, but in
order that those deceived by him may learn
his infamy and blush for the sort of man they
have communicated with 7 ... I pray that
6 For the i^UojTTcoxia of Athanasius, ci.Hist.Ar. 6i, Vit. Ant.
17, 30, and the stress laid on the hardship of the aproc (as here) in
Encycl. 4, Hist. Ar. ubi suj>r. and 72.
7 .... ' tamen, et hoc cum illis.'
you may be preserved in the Lord, brethren
most beloved and longed for.
LETTER XLVIIL
Letter to Amun'^.
Written before 354 a.d.
All things made by God are beautiful and
pure, for the Word of God has made nothing
useless or impure. For ' we are a sweet
savour of Christ in them that are being saved ^,'
as the Apostle says. But since the devil's
darts are varied and subtle, and he contrives to
trouble those who are of simpler mind, and
tries to hinder the ordinarv exercises of the
brethren, scattering secretly among them
thoughts of uncleanness and defilement ; come
let us briefly dispel the error of the evil one by
the grace of the Saviour, and confirm the mind
of the simple. For * to the pure all things are
pure,' but both the conscience and all that
belongs to the unclean are defiled 3. I marvel
also at the craft of the devil, in that, although
he is corruption and mischief itself, he suggests
thoughts under the show of purity ; but with
the result of a snare rather than a test. For
with the object, as I said before, of distracting
ascetics from their customary and salutary
meditation, and of appearing to overcome
them, he stirs some such buzzing thoughts as
are of no profit in hfe, vain questions and
frivolities which one ought to put aside. For
tell me, beloved and most pious friend, what
sin or uncleanness there is in any natural
secretion, — as though a man were minded to
make a culpable matter of the cleanings of the
nose or the sputa from the mouth ? And we
may add also the secretions of the belly, such
as are a physical necessity of animal life. More-
over if we believe man to be, as the divine
Scriptures say, a work of God's hands, how
could any defiled work proceed from a pure
Power ? and if, according to the divine Acts of
the Apostles *, 'we are God's offspring,' we have
nothing unclean in ourselves. For then only
do we incur defilement, when we commit sin,
that foulest of things. But when any bodily
excretion takes place independently of will,
then we experience this, like other things, by a
necessity of nature. But since those whose
only pleasure is to gainsay what is said aright,
or rather what is made by God, pervert even a
» See Migne xxvi. 1169, sqq. ; Prolegg. ch. ii. § 7. Amun, pro-
bably the Nitrian monk {supr. p. 212, and D. C. B. i. 102 init. ). At
any rate, Athanasius addresses his correspondent as 'elder' and
' father,' which accords well with the language 01 I'' it. Ant. ulnsupr.
The letter stales clearly Athanasius' opinion a^ to the relative
value of the celibate and marrieLi s:atc. it :,l^j siilW-s tne healthy
gooa sense of tne great bishop in dealing with the morbid scrupu-
losity which even at that early date had begun to characterise
certain circles in the Monastic w orld. 2 2 Cor. ii. xj
3 Tit. i. 15. 4 Acts xvii. 28.
XLVIII. AD AMUN.
557
saying in the Gospels, alleging that 'not that
which goeth in defileth a man, but that which
goeth out 5/ we are obliged to make plain this
unreasonableness, — for I cannot call it a ques-
tion— of theirs. For firstly, like unstable
persons, they wrest the Scriptures ^ to their own
ignorance. Now the sense of the divine oracle
is as follows. Certain persons, like these of to-
day, were in doubt about meats. The Lord
Himself, to dispel their ignorance, or it may be
to unveil their deceitfiilness, lays down that, not
what goes in defiles the man, but what goes
out. Then he adds exactly whence they go
out, namely from the heart. For there, as he
knows, are the evil treasures of profane thoughts
and other sins. But the Apostle teaches the
same thing more concisely, saying, ' But meat
shall not bring us before God 7.' Moreover,
one might reasonably say no natural secretion
will bring us before him for punishment. But
possibly medical men (to put these people to
shame even at the hands of outsiders) will sup-
port us on this point, telHng us that there are
certain necessary passages accorded to the
animal body, to provide for the dismissal of the
superfluity of what is secreted in our several
parts ; for example, for the superfluity of the
head, the hair and the watery discharges from
the head, and the purgings of the belly, and
that superfluity again of the seminative
channels. What sin then is there in God's
name, elder most beloved of God, if the
Master who made the body willed and made
these parts to have such passages? But since
we must grapple with the objections of evil
persons, as they may say, 'If the organs have
been severally fashioned by the Creator, then
there is no sin in their genuine use,' let us stop
them by asking this question : What do you
mean by use ? That lawful use which God per-
mitted when He said, ' Increase and multiply,
and replenish the earth ^,' and which the
Apostle approves in the words, ' Marriage is
honourable and the bed undefiled 9,' or that use
which is public, yet carried on stealthily and in
adulterous fashion ? For in other matters also
which go to make up life, we shall find differ-
ences accordingto circumstances. For example,
it is not right to kill, yet in war it is lawful and
praiseworthy to destroy the enemy; accordingly
not only are they who have distinguished them-
selves in the field held worthy of great honours,
but monuments are put up proclaiming their
achievements. So that the same act is at one
time and under some circumstances unlawful,
while under others, and at the right time, it is
lawful and permissible. The same reasoning
5 Matt. XV. II. 6 a Pet. iii. i6. 7 i Cor. viii. 8.
8 Gen. i. 28. 9 Heb. xiii. 4.
applies to the relation of the sexes. He is
blessed who. being Ireely yoked in his youth,
naturally begets children. But if he uses nature
licentiously, the punishment of which the
Apostle ' writes shall await whoremongers
and adulterers.
For there are two ways in life, as touching
these matters. The one the more moderate
and ordinary, I mean marriage; the other
angelic and unsurpassed, namely virginity.
Now if a man choose the way ot the world,
namely marriage, he is not indeed to blame ;
yet he will not receive such great gifts as the
other. For he will receive, since he too brings
forth fruit, namely thirtyfold 2. But if a man
embrace the holy and unearthly way, even
though, as compared with the former, it be
rugged and hard to accomplish, yet it has the
more wonderful gifts : for it grows the perfect
fruit, namely an hundredfold. So then their
unclean and evil objections had their proper
solution long since given in the divine Scrip-
tures. Strengthen then, father, the flocks ^^
under you, exhorting them from the Apostolic
writings, guiding them from the Evangelical,
counselling them from the Psalms, and saying,
' quicken me according to Thy Words ; ' but by
' Thy Word,' is meant that we should serve
Him with a pure heart. For knowing this, the
Prophet says, as if interpreting himself, ' Make
me a clean heart, O God *,' lest filthy thoughts
trouble me. David again, ' And stablish me
with Thy free spirit s,' that even if ever
thoughts disturb me, a certain strong power
from Thee may stablish me, acting as a support.
Giving then this and the like advice, say with
regard to those who are slow to obey the truth,
' I will teach Thy ways unto the wicked,' and,
confident in the Lord that you will persuade
them to desist from such wickedness, sing * and
sinners shall be converted unto Thee V And
be it granted, that they who raise malicious
questions may cease from such vain labour,
and that they who doubt in their simplicity may
be strengthened with a ' free spirit ; ' while as
many of you as surely know the truth, hold
it unbroken and unshaken in Christ Jesus
our Lord, with whom be to the Father ^lory
and might, together with the Holy Spirit, for
ever and ever. Amen.
LETTER XLIX.
Letter to Dracontius\
Written a.d. 354 or 355.
I AM at a loss how to write. Am I to blame
> Heb. xiii. 4. ' See Mark iv. 20, <S:c.
»* This i>s a clear reference to the Monastic Societies which had
now long existed in the Niiri.in desert. 3 Ps. ixix. 107.
4 Ps. li. to. 5 lb. 12. 6 lb. li. 13.
I Dracontius, Bishop of Hcrmupolis Parva, was one of the
558
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
you for your refi>sal ? or for having regard to
the trials, and hiding for fear of the Jews ^ ? In
any case, however it may be, what you have
done is worthy of blame, beloved Dracontius.
For it was not fitting that after receiving the
grace you should hide, nor that, being a wise
man, you should furnish others with a pretext
for flight. For many are offended when they
hear it ; not merely that you have done this,
but that you have done it having regard
to the times and to the afflictions which are
weighing upon the Church. And I fear lest, in
flying for your own sake, you prove to be in
peril in the sight of the Lord on account of
others. For if ' he that offendeth one of the
little ones, should rather choose that a mill stone
were hanged about his neck, and that he were
drowned in the depths of the sea 2%' what can
be in store for you, if you prove an offence to
so many ? For the surprising unanimity about
your election in the districts of Alexandria will
of necessity be broken up by your retirement :
and the episcopate of the district will be
grasped at by many, — and many unfit persons,
as you are well aware. And many heathen
who were promising to become Christians upon
your election will remain heathen, if your pieiy
sets at nought the grace given you.
2. What defence will you offer for such
conduct? With what arguments will you be
able to wash away and efface such an im-
peachment ? How will you heal those who on
your account are fallen and offended ? Or how
will you be able to restore the broken peace ?
Beloved Uracontius, you have caused us grief
instead of joy, groaning instead of consolation.
For we expected to have you with us as a con-
solation ; and now we behold you in flight, and
that you will be convicted in judgment, and when
upon your trial will repent it. And ' Who shall
have pity upon thee *,' as the Prophet says,
who will turn his mind to you for peace, when
he sees the brethren for whom Christ died
injured on account of your flight? For you
must know, and not be in doubt, that while
before your election you lived to yourself, after
bishops expelled from their sees, 356-7. His place of exile
was the desert near ' Clysma,' i.e. the gulf of Suez (Hist. Ar.
75, cf. Hieron. I'ii. Hilar. 30). We find him ui 362 at the Coun-
cil of Alexandria. The present letter, written to urge Dracontius
not to refuse the Episcopate, was written just before Easter (S 10),
when persecution was expected (§ 5), and after the mission of Sera-
pion, Amrnonius and others to Constantius, a.d. 353. It was
probably written, therefore, early either in 354 or 355. The letter
is one of the masterpieces of Athanasius : its unforced warmth,
vigour, and affection can fail to touch no one who reads it. It is,
like the letter to Amun, one of our most important documents for
the history of Egyptian Monasticism. (Migne xxv. 524 sqq.)
2 Cf. Joh. iii. 2 ; xix. 38. 2* Matt, xviii. 6.
3 Hermupolis Parva was in the nome, or department, of Alex-
andria (anciently called the nome of Hermupolis in the Delta),
and lay on a canal 44 miles east of the Capital ; it is identified
with Danianhur. Agathammon, a Meletian bishop of this ' dis-
trict,' is mentioned in the list, Apol. Ar. 71, where the district of
'Sais ' seems to include a much wider area than the ancient Saite
nome (Maspero. Hist. Anc. 4, p. 24). 4 Jer xv. 5.
it, you live for your flock. And before you had
received the grace of the episcopate, no one
knew you ; but after you became one, the
laity expect you to bring them food, namely
instruction from the Scriptures. When then
they expect, and suffer hunger, and you are
feeding yourselfs only, and our Lord Jesus
Christ comes and we stand before Him, what
defence will you offer when He sees His own
sheep hungering ? For had you not taken the
money, He would not have blamed you. But
He would reasonably do so if upon taking it you
dug and buried it, — in the words which God
forbid that your piety should ever hear : ' Thou
oughtest to have given my money to the
bankers, that when I came 1 might demand it
of them ^.'
3. I beseech you, spare yourself and us.
Yourself, lest you run into peril ; us, lest we
be grieved because of you. Take thought of
the Church, lest many of the little ones be
injured on your account, and the others be
given an occasion of withdrawing. Nay but if
you feared the times and acted as you did from
timidity, your mind is not manly ; for in such
a case you ought to manifest zeal for Christ,
and rather meet circumstances boldly, and
use the language of blessed Paul : ' in
all these things we are more than con-
querors 7 ; ' and the more so in that we
ought to serve not ihe time, but the Lord ^
But if the organising of the Churches is
distasteful to you, and you do not think the
ministry of the episcopate has its reward, why,
then you have brought yourself to despise the
Saviour that ordered these things. I beseech
you, dismiss such ideas, nor tolerate those who
advise you in such a sense, for this is not
worthy of Dracontius. For the order the Lord
has established by the Apostles abides fair and
firm ; but the cowardice of the brethren shall
cease
8a
4. For if all were of the same mind as your
present advisers, how would you have become
a Christian, since there would be no bishops ?
Or if our successors are to inherit this state of
mind, how will the Churches be able to hold
together ? Or do your advisers think that you
have received nothing, that they despise it? If
so surely they are wrong. For it is time for
them to think that the grace of the Font is
nothing, if some are found to despise it. But
5 Cf. Ezek. xxxiv. 2.
6 See Matt. xxv. 27, and Luke xix. 2^. It is not clear whether
by the ' money ' received by Drac. is meant his actual consecration,
or merely his election. 7 Rom. viii. 37.
8 Rom. xii. 11. and Westcott and Hort on various reading.
8a It should be observed that the fear of Dracontius was, not
that he would suffer in dignity by becoming a bishop, but lest he
should deteriorate spiritually (§ 8, init.). Cf. the dying .soliloquy
of Pope Eugenius IV. : ' Gabriele, hadst thou never been Pope nor
Cardin.il it had been better for thy salvation.' See also S. Ber-
nard, de Consideratiojie.
XLIX. AD DRACONTIUxVl.
59
you have received it, beloved Dracontius ; do
not tolerate your advisers nor deceive yourself.
For this will be required of you by the God
who gave it. Have you not heard the Apostle
say, ' Neglect not the gift that is in thee 9 ? '
or have you not read how he accepts the man
that had doubled his money, while he condem-
ned the one that had hidden it ? But may it
come to pass that you may quickly return, in
order that you too may be one of those who are
praised. Or tell me, whom do your advisers
wish you to imitate ? For we ought to walk by
the standard of the saints and the fathers, and
imitate them, and to be sure that if we depart
from them we put ourselves also out of their
fellowship. Whom then do they wish you to
imitate? The one who hesitated, and while
wishing to follow, delayed it and took counsel
because of his family % or blessed Paul, who,
the moment the stewardship was entrusted to
him, ' straightway conferred not with flesh and
blood ^ ? ' For although he said, ' I am not
worthy to be called an Apostle 3,' yet, knowing
what be had received, and being not ignorant
of the giver, he wrote, ' For woe is me if I
preach not the gospel 1' But, as it was *woe
to me ' if he did not preach, so, in teach-
ing and preaching the gospel, he had his
converts as his joy and crown s. This explains
why the saint ^ was zealous to preach as far as
Illyricum, and not to shrink from proceeding
to Rome 7, or even going as far as the Spains^,
in order that the more he laboured, he might
receive so much the greater reward for his
labour. He boasted then that he had fought
the good fight, and was confident that he should
receive the great crown '. Therefore, beloved
Dracontius, whom are you imitating in your
present action ? Paul, or men unlike him ? For
my part, I pray that you, and myself, may prove
an imitator of all the saints.
5. Or possibly there are some who advise
you to hide, because you have given your
word upon oath not to accept the office it
elected. For I hear that they are buzzing in
your ears to this effect, and consider that they
are thus acting conscientiously. But if they
were truly conscientious, they would above all
have feared God, Who imposed this ministry
upon you. Or if they had read the divine
Scriptures, they would not have advised you
contrary to them. For it is time for them to
blame Jeremiah also, and to impeach the great
Moses, in that they did not listen to their
advice, but fearing God fulfilled their ministry,
and prophesying were made perfect. For they
9 I Tim. iv. 14. * Luke h . 6i. _ ' Gal.
XV. g. 4lb.ix. 16. 5 I Th. ii. 19.
6 Reading xw ayi'o) as proposed by Monti.
7 Rom. i. 15- ' * ^t)- *^- '9' ^^•
i. 16.
3 1 Cor.
I 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8.
also when they had received their mission
and the grace of Prophecy, refused. But after-
wards they feared, and did not set at nought
Him that sent them. Whether then you be of
stammering utterance, and slow of tongue, yet
fear God that made you, or if you call yourself
too young to preach, yet reverence Him Who
knew you before you were made. Or if you
have given your word (now their word was to
the saints as an oath), yet read Jeremiah, how
he too had said, ' I will not name the Name of
the Lord^,' yet afterwards he feared the fire
kindled within him, and did not do as he had
said, nor hid himself as if bound by an oath,
but reverenced Him that had entrusted to him
his office, and fulfilled the prophetic call. Or are
you not aware, beloved, that Jonah also fled,
but met with the fate that befel him, after
which he returned and prophesied ?
6. Do not then entertain counsels opposite
to this. For the Lord knows our case better
than we ourselves, and He knows to whom
He is entrusting His Churches. For even if a
man be not worthy, yet let him not look at his
former life, but let him carry out his ministry,
lest, in addition to his life he incur also the
curse of negligence. I ask you, beloved Dra-
contius, whether knowing this, and being a
wise man, you are not pricked in your soul ?
Do you not feel anxious lest any of those
entrusted to you should perish? Do you not
burn, as with a fire in your conscience ? Are
you not in fear of the day of judgment, in
which none of your present advisers will be
there to aid you? For each shall give account
of those entrusted to his hands. For how did
his excuse benefit the man who hid the
money ? Or how did it benefit Adam to say,
'The woman beguiled me 3?' Beloved Dra-
contius, even if you are really weak, yet you
ought to take up the charge, lest, the Church
being unoccupied, the enemies injure it, taking
advantage of your flight. You shou,d gird
yourself up, so as not to leave us alone in the
struggle; you should labour with us, in order
to receive the reward also along with all.
7. Make haste then, beloved, and tarry no
longer, nor suffer those who would prevent
you : but remember Him that has given, and
come hither to us who love you, who give you
Scriptural advice, in order that you may both
be installed by ourselves, and, as you minister
in the churches make remembrance of us.
For you are not the only one who has been
elected from among monks, nor the only one
to have presided over a monastery, or to have
been beloved by monks. But you know that
not only was Serapion a monk, and presided
« Jer. XX. 9.
3 Gen. iii. xa.
S6o
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
over that number of monks ; you were not
unaware of how many monks ApoUos was
father ; you know Agathon, and are not igno-
rant of Ariston. You remember Ammonius
who went abroad 3a with Serapion. Per-
haps you have also heard of Muituss^a in the
upper Thebaid, and can learn about Paul ^^ at
Latopolis, and many others. And yet these,
when elected, did not gainsay; but taking Elisha
as an example, and knowing the story of Elijah,
and having learnt all about the disciples and
apostles, they grappled with the charge, and
did not despise the ministry, and were not
inferior to themselves, but rather look for the
reward of their labour, advancing themselves,
and guiding others onward. For how many
have they turned away from the idols ? How
many have they caused to cease from their
familiarity with demons by their warning ? How
many servants have they brought to the Lord,
so as to cause those who saw such wonders to
marvel at the sight? Or is it not a great
wonder to make a damsel live as a virgin,
and a young man live in continence, and an
idolater come to know Christ?
8. Let not monks then prevent you, as
though you alone had been elected from
among monks ; nor do you make excuses, to
the effect that you will deteriorate. For you
may even grow better if you imitate Paul, and
follow up the actions of the Saints. For you
know that men like those, when appointed
stewards of the mysteries, all the more pressed
forward to the mark of their high calling "*.
When did Paul meet martyrdom and expect
to receive his crown, if not after being sent to
teach ? When did Peter make his confession,
if not when he was preaching the Gospel, and
had become a fisher of mens? When was
Elijah taken up, if not after completing his
prophetic career? When did Elisha gain a
double share of the Spirit, if not after leaving
all to follow Elijah ? Or why did the Saviour
choose disciples, if not to send them out as
apostles ?
9. So tJlce these as an example, beloved
Dracontius, and do not say, or believe those
who say, that the bishop's office is an occasion
of sin, nor that it gives rise to temptations to
sin. For it is possible for you also as a bishop
to hunger and thirst^, as Paul did. You can
drink .no wine, like Timothy?, and fast con-
stantly too, like Paul^, in order that thus
3» In 353, see J^est. Ind. xxv. ; Sozom. iv. 9.
3aa Perhaps the ' IMuis ' of the Sardican subscriptions {Afol.
A r. ) and the ' Move ' of Vii. Pachom. c. 72.
o^ Paulus, perhaps identical with the ' Philo ' of Sard, subsc.
and Vit. Pack, ubi supr. A 'Philo' and ' Muius ' also occur
close together in Apol. Fug. 7 (note 9).
4 Phil. iii. 14. 5 Matt. iv. 19. 6 Phil. iv. la.
' I Tim. V. 23. 8 2 Cor. xi. 27.
fasting after his example you may feast others
with your words, and while thirsting for lack
of drink, water others by teaching. Let not
your advisers, then, allege these things. For
we know both bishops who fast, and monks
who eat. We know bishops who drink no
wine, as well as monks who do. We know
bishops who work 9 wonders, as well as monks
who do not. Many also of the bishops have
not even married, while monks have been ^
fathers of children; just as conversely we know
bishops who are fathers of children and monks
'of the corapletest kind ^.' And again, we know
clergy who suffer hunger, and monks who fast.
For it is possible in the latter way, and not
forbidden in the former. But let a man,
wherever he is, strive earnestly ; for the crown
is given not according to position, but ac-
cording to action.
ID. Do not then suffer those who give
contrary advice. But rather hasten and delay
not ; the more so as the holy festival is ap-
proaching ; so that the laity may not keep the
feast without you, and you bring great danger
upon yourself. For who will in your absence
preach them the Easter sermon ? Who will
announce to them the great day of the Resur-
rection, if you art in hiding ? Who will counsel
them, if you are in flight, to keep the feast
fittingly? Ah, how many will be the better if
you appear, how many be injured if you fly !
And who will think well of you for this? and
why do they advise you not to take up the
bishop's office, wljen they themselves wish to
have presbyters 3? For if you are bad, let
them not associate with you. But if they know
that you are good, let them not envy the
others. For if, as they say, teaching and
government is an occasion of sin, let them not
be taught themselves, nor have presbyters, lest
they deteriorate, both they and those who
teach them. But do not attend to these
human sayings, nor sufter those who give such
advice, as I have often already said. But
rather make haste and turn to the Lord, in
order that, taking thought for his sheep, you
may remember us also. But to this end I
have bidden our beloved Hierax, the pres-
byter, and Maximus the reader go, and bid
you by word of mouth also, that you may be
able thus to learn both with what feelings I
have written, and the danger that results from
gainsaying the ordinance of the Church.
9 o-r)(u,£ia. At the end of § 7 this word can only be rendered
' wonders." But here it appears at least probable that it has the
different sense of ' miracles.'
.1 Probably the reference is to married men who had subse-
quently become monks. Or else, as monks at this time lived in
many cases in the world, not in communities, it may refer to
married men leading an ascetic life. ' e? oAoKAijpov yfVous.
3 This is not our earliest notice of ordained ersons in monastic
societies, see Afioi. Ar. 67.
L., LI. AD LUCIFERUM.
S^i
LETTER L.
First Letter to Lucifer *.
To our lord, and most beloved brother the
Bishop and Confessor Lucifer. Athanasius
greeting in the Lord.
Being well in body by God's favour, we have
now sent our most beloved deacon Eutyches,
that your most pious holiness, as is much desire(l
by us, may be pleased to inform us of the safety
of yourself and those with you. For we believe
it is by the life of you Confessors and servants
of God that the state of the Cathohc Church is
renewed ; and that what heretics have assayed
to reud in pieces, our Lord Jesus Christ by
your means restores whole.
For although the forerunners of Antichrist
have by the power of this world done everything
to put out the lantern of truth, yet the Deity by
your confession shews its light all the clearer,
so that none can fail to see their deceit.
Heretofore perhaps they were able to dissimu-
late : now they are called Antichrists. For
who can but execrate them, and fly from their
communion like a taint, or the poison of a
serpent ? The whole Church everywhere is
mourning, every city groans, aged bishops are
suffering in exile, and heretics dissembling, who
while denying Christ have made themselves
publicans, sitting in the Churches and exacting
revenue ^ O new kind of men and of persecu-
tion which the devil has devised, namely to
use such cruelty, and even ministers as the
agents of evil. But although they act thus, and
have gone all lengths in pride and blasphemy,
yet your confession, your piety and wisdom,
will be the very greatest comfort and solace to
the brotherhood. For it has been reported to
us that your holiness has written to Constantius
1 Lucifer, bishop of Calaris (Ca^liari) in Sardinia, exiled by
Constantius after the Council of Milan (Prolegg. ch. ii. § 7), first
to Germanicia, then to Eleiitheropolis in Palestine, at both of
which places he was subjected to harsh treatn>ent, lastly to the
Thebaid. The violence of his advoeacy of the Nicene faith,
coupled with extreme personal abusiveness, may have aggravated
his sufferings. On his part in the events of 362, see Prolegg.
ch. ii. S9. Thepresent letters exist only in Latin (Mignexxvi. 1181),
and are probably a translation from the Greek. Athan. may have
known Latin, but there is no evidence that he ever wrote in that lan-
guage. The play on the name Lucifer in Letter 51 proves nothing
to the contrary. Dr. Bright (in D.C.B. i. 198, note) expresses
a doubt as to the genuineness of our letters which is I think
unsupported by internal evidence. The main difficulty is in the
reconciliation of the apparent references (51 init.) to the events of
356 as recent with the clear references to the de A thanasio and
Moriendunt pro Filio Dei of Lucifer, neither of which works
were penned before 358, while the latter in its final form mentions
the translation of Eudoxius to CP., and therefore falls as late as
360 (for proof of this, see Kruger, Lucifer, pp. 102 — 109). But on
close examination, the language of Letter 51 is satisfied by the
events of 359, the vindictive commission of Paul Catena and the
search for Athanasius among the Monasteries (cf. Letter $% note 1).
The respectful reference to Constantius in Letter 50 is of a purely
formal character. The reference to the parents of Athanasius as
still living is of great interest as one of the very few notices of the
family of the great bishop (Prolegg. ch. ii. § i). The agitated
tone of the Epistles reminds us of the Arian History, and they
may be set down to about the year 355. On Lucifer, the
monograph of Kruger is the standard authority.
2 An exact description of George in 357 and 358,
Augustus ; and we wonder more and more that
dwelling as it were among scorpions you yet
preserve freedom of spirit, in order, by advice or
teaching or correction, to bring those in error
to the light of truth. I ask then, and all con-
fessors join me in asking, that you will be good
enough to send us a copy ; so that all may
perceive, not by hearsay only but by letters, the
valour of your spirit, and the confidence and
firmness of your faith. Those who are with
me salute your holiness. I salute all those
who are with you. May the deity ever keep
you safe and sound and mindful of us, most
beloved lord, and true man of God.
Upon receiving this letter, blessed Lucifer sent
the books IV hich he had addressed to Constantius ;
and when he had read them Athanasius sent the
following letter :
LETTER LL
Second Letter to Lucifer.
To the most glorious lord and deservedly
much-desired fellow-Bishop Lucifer, Athanasius
greeting in the Lord.
Although I believe that tidings have reached
your holiness also of the persecution which the
enemies of Christ have just now attempted to
raise, seeking our blood, yet our own most
beloved messengers can tell your piety about it.
For to such a length did they dare to carry
their madness by means of the soldiers, that
they not only banished the Clergy of the city,
but also went out to the Hermits, and laid
their fatal hands upon Solitaries. Hence I
also withdrew far away, lest those who enter-
tained me should suffer trouble at their
hands. For whom do Arians spare, who have
spared not even their own souls ? Or how can
they give up their infamous actions while they
persist in denying Christ our Lord the only
Son of God ? This is the root of their wicked-
ness ; on this foundation of sand they build up
the perversity of their ways, as we find it
written in the thirteenth Psalm, ' The fool said
in his heart there is no God ; ' and presently
follows, ' CoiTupt are they and become abomin-
able in their works".' Hence the Jews who
denied the Son of God, deserved to be called
' a sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity,
a seed of evil doers, children without law 3.'
Why ' without law?* — because you have de-
serted the Lord. And so the most blessed Paul,
when he had begun not only to believe in the
Son of God, but also to preach His deity,
wrote, ' I know nothing against myself*.'
Accordingly we too, according to your confes-
sion of faith, desire to hold the Apostolic tradi-
a» Ps. xIt. I.
9 Isa. i. 4.
4 X Cor. IT. 4.
VOL. IV.
0 o
562
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
tion, and to live according to the commands of
the divine law, that we may be found along with
you in that band in which now Patriarchs, Pro-
phets, Apostles and Martyrs are rejoicing. So
then, though the Arian madness, aided by
external power, was so active that our brethren
on account of their fury could not even see the
open air with freedom, yet by God's favour,
according to your prayers, I have been able,
though with trouble and danger, to see the
brother who is wont to bring me necessaries
and the letters of your holiness, along with those
of others. And so we have received the books
of your most wise and religious soul, in which
-we have seen the image of an Apostle, the
confidence of a Prophet, the teaching of truth,
the doctrine of true faith, the way of heaven,
the glory of martyrdom, the triumphs against
the Arian heresy, the unimpaired tradition
of our Fathers, the right rule of the Church's
order. O truly Lucifer, who according to your
name bring the light of truth, and have set it on
a candlestick to give light to all. For who,
except the Arian s, does not clearly see from
your teaching the true faith and the taint of the
Arians. Forcibly and admirably, like light
from darkness, you have separated the truth
from the subtilty and dishonesty of heretics,
defended the Catholic Church, proved that the
arguments of the Arians are nothing but a kind
of hallucination, and taught that the diabolical
gnashings of the teeth are to be despised.
How good and welcome are your exhortations
to martyrdom ; how highly to be desired have
you shewn death to be on behalf of Christ the
Son of the living God 5. What love you have
shewn for the world to come and for the heavenly
life. You seem to be a true temple of the
Saviour, Who dwells in you and utters these
exact words through you, and has given such
grace to your discourses. Beloved as you were
before among all, now such passionate affection
for you is settled in the minds of all, that they
call you the Elijah of our times; and no wonder.
For if they who seem to please God are called
Sons of God, much more proper is it to give
that name to the associates of the Prophets,
namely the Confessors, and especially to you.
Believe me, Lucifer, it is not you only who has
uttered this, but the Holy Spirit with you.
Whence comes so great a memory for the
Scriptures ? Whence an unimpaired sense and
understanding of them ? Whence has such an
order of discourse been framed ? Whence did
you get such exhortations to the way of heaven,
whence such confidence against the devil, and
such proofs against heretics, unless the Holy
5 Lucifer had written among other books one called ' Mori-
endum pro Dei Filio.' His two books ' pro aancto Athanasio '
are referred to below.
Spirit had been lodged in you ? Rejoice there-
fore to see that you are already there where also
are your predecessors the martyrs, that is, among
the band of angels. We also rejoice, having
you as an example of valour, and patience, and
liberty. For I blush to say anything of what
you have written about my name 5", lest I should
appear a flatterer. But I know and believe
that the Lord Himself, Who has revealed all
knowledge to your holy and religious spirit,
will reward you for this labour also with a
reward in the kingdom of the heavens. Since
then you are such a man, we ask the Lord
in prayer that you may pray for us, that in His
mercy He may now deign to look down upon
the Catholic Church, and deliver all His
servants from the hands of persecutors; in
order that all they too who have fallen on
account of temporal fear may at length be
enabled to raise themselves and return to the
way of righteousness, led away from which
they are wandering, poor people, not knowing
in what a pit they are. In particular I ask, if
I have said anything amiss, you would be good
enough to overlook it, for from so great a
fountain my unskilfulness has not been able to
draw what it might have done. But as to our
brethren, I ask you again to overlook my not
having been able to see them. For truth itself
is my witness that I wished and longed to com-
pass this, and was greatly grieved at being
unable. For my eyes ceased not from tears,
nor my spirit from groaning, because we are
not permitted even to see the brethren. But
God is my witness, that on account of their
persecution I have not been able to see even
the parents whom I have ^. For what is there
that the Arians leave undone ? They watch the
roads, observe those who enter and leave the
city, search the vessels, go round the deserts,
ransack houses, harass the brethren, cause
unrest to everybody. But thanks be to God,
in so doing they are more and more incurring
the execration of all, and coming to be truly
known for what your holiness has called them:
slaves of Antichrist. And, poor wretches,
hated as they are, they persist in their maUce,
until they shall be condemned to the death of
their ancestor Pharaoh. Those with me salute
your piety. Pray salute those who are with
you. May God's divine grace preserve you,
mindful of us and ever blessed, worthily called
man of God, servant of Christ, partner of the
Apostles, comfort of the brotherhood, master
of truth, and in al) things most longed for.
S» huciler's two hooks /'ro Aikanasio.
6 'Parentes quos habeo.' Can this refer to liteial parents?
(i) he was now over 60 years old : (2) some 6 years later, under
Valen^, he hid, according to the tale in Socr. iv. 13, for four months
in liis father's tomb (see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 9).
LII. AD MONACHOS I.
563
LETTER LII.
First Letter to Monks \
(Written 358—360).
I. To those in every place ^ who are living
a monastic life, who are established in the
faith of God, and sanctified in Christ, and
who say, * Behold, we have forsaken all, and
followed Thee^%' brethren dearly beloved
and longed for, heartiest greeting in the
Lord.
1, In compliance with your affectionate re-
quest, which you have frequently urged upon
me, I have written a short account of the
sufferings which ourselves and the Church have
undergone, refuting, according to my ability,
the accursed heresy of the Arian madmen, and
proving how entirely it is alien from the Truth.
And I thought it needful to represent to your
Piety what pains the writing of these things
has cost me, in order that you may understand
thereby how truly the blessed Apostle has
said, ' O the depth of the riches both of the
wisdom and knowledge of God3;' and may
kindly bear with a weak man such as I am by
nature. For the more I desired to write, and
endeavoured to force myself to understand the
Divinity of the Word, so much the more did
the knowledge thereof withdraw itself from me;
and in proportion as I thought that I appre-
hended it, in so much I perceived myself to
fail of doing so. Moreover also I was unable
to express in writing even what I seemed to
myself to understand ; and that which I wrote
was unequal to the imperfect shadow of the
truth which existed in my conception,
2. Considering therefore how it is written in
the Book of Ecclesiastes, ' I said, I will be
wise, but it was far from me ; That which is
far off, and exceeding deep, who shall find it
out 4 ? ' and what is said in the Psalms, ' The
knowledge of Thee is too wonderful for me ;
it is high, I cannot attain unto it s ; ' and that
Solomon says, * It is the glory of God to con-
ceal a thing^;' I frequently designed to stop
and to cease writing; believe me, I did. But
lest I should be found to disappoint you, or
by my silence to lead into impiety those who
have made enquiry of you, and are given to
disputation, I constrained myself to write briefly,
what I have now sent^» to your piety. For
although a perfect apprehension of the truth is
« This beautiful and striking Letter (Migne xxv. 691) formed
the introduction to a work, which the Author, as he says in the
course of it, thought unworthy of being preserved for posterity.
Some critics have supposed it to be the Orauous against the Arians ;
but this opinion can hardly be maintained {supr. p. 267). The
Epistle was written in 358, or later, before the Epistle to Serapion.
On its relation to the ' Arian History," see above, pp. 267, 268.
2 This appears inconsistent with ttie direciion'^ below, § 3
(note 3). The heading is, therefore, of doubtful genuineness.
2' Matt. xix. 27. 3 Rom. xi. 33. ■» Eccles. vii. 23, 24.
S Ps. cxxxix. 6. 6 Prov. xxv. 2. *» Probably a lost writing.
at present far removed from us by reason of
the infirmity of the flesh, yet it is possible, as
the Preacher himself has said, to perceive the
madness of the impious, and having found it,
to say that it is 'more bitter than death 7.'
Wherefore for this reason, as perceiving this
and able to find it out, I have written, know-
ing that to the faithful the detection of impiety
is a sufficient information wherein piety con-
sists. For although it be impossible to com-
prehend what God is, yet it is possible to say
what He is not^ And we know that He is
not as man ; and that it is not lawful to con-
ceive of any originated nature as existingin Him.
So also respecting the Son of God, although
we are by nature very far from being able to
comprehend Him ; yet is it possible and easy to
condemn the assertions of the heretics con-
cerning Him, and to say, that the Son of God
is not such ; nor is it lawful even to conceive
in our minds such things as they speak, con-
cerning His Godhead ; much less to utter them
with the lips.
3. Accordingly I have written as well as
I was able; and you, dearly beloved, receive
these communications not as containing a per-
fect exposition of the Godhead of the Word,
but as being merely a refutation of the im-
piety of the enemies of Christ, and as con-
taining and aft'ording to those who desire it,
suggestions for arrivmg at a pious and sound
faith in Christ. And if in anything they are
defective (and I think they are defective in all
respects), pardon it with a pure conscience,
and only receive favourably the boldness of
my good intentions in support of godliness.
For an utter condemnation of the heresy of
the Arians, it is sufficient for you to know
the judgment given by the Lord in the death
of Arius, of which you have already been
informed by others. ' For what the Holy
God hath purposed, who shall scatter ' ? ' and
whom the Lord condemned who shall justify"?
After such a sign given, who do not now
acknowledge, that the heresy is hated of God,
however it may have men for its patrons?
Now when you have read this account, pray
for me, and exhort one another so to do.
And immediately send it back to me, and
suffer no one whatever to take a copy of it,
nor transcribe it for yourselves 3. But like
7 Eccles. vii. 26.
8 Newman observes in loe. " This negative character of our
knowledge, whether of the Father or of the Son, is insisted on
by other writers ' All we can know about the Divine Nature
is, that it is no/ to be known ; and whatever positive statements we
make concerning God, relate not to His Nature, but to the accom-
paniments of His Nature.' Damasc. F.O. i. 4 ; S. Basil c. Eunom.
1. 10, ■ Totum ab animo rejicite ; quidquid occitrierit, negate ....
d\cii<^no}i.estillud.' August. Eua/rai. 2. in fsa/»ixxvi.&. Cyril,
Catech. xi. 11. Anonym, in Append. Aug. Oper. t. 5. p. 383.
[Patr. Lat. x.xxix. 2175.) ■ Is. xiv. 27.
a Rom. viii. 33, 34, so quoted Ep. jEg. 19. 3 Lttttt 54, fin.
002
564
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
good money-changers 4 be satisfied with the
reading; but read it repeatedly if you desire
to do so. For it is not safe that the writings
of us babblers and private persons should fall
into the hands of them that shall come after.
Salute one another in love, and also all that
come unto you in piety and faith. For *if
any man ' as the Apostle has said, ' love not
the Lord, let him be anathema. The grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ be with yous. Amen.'
LETTER LIIL
Seco7id letter^ to Monks.
Athanasius, Archbishop" of Alexandria, to
the Solitaries.
Athanasius to those who practise a solitary
life, and are settled in faith in God. most
beloved brethren, greeting in the Lord.
I thank the Lord who hath given to you to
believe in Him, that ye too may have with
the saints eternal life. But because there
are certain persons who hold with Arius and
go about the monasteries with no other object
save that under colour of visiting you, and
returning from us they may deceive the simple;
whereas there are certain who, while they affirm
that they do not hold with Arius, yet compro-
mise themselves and worship with his party;
I have been compelled, at the instance of cer-
tain most sincere brethren, to write at once
in order that keeping faithfully and without
guile the pious faith which God's grace works
in you, you may not give occasion of scandal
to the brethren. For when any sees you, the
faithful in Christ, associate and communicate
with such people, [or worshipping along with
4 " On this celebrated text, as it may be called, which is cited so
frequently by the Fathers, vid. Coteler. in Const. Apol. ii. 36.
in Clement Horn. ii. 51. Potter in Clem. Sirom. i. p. 425. Vales,
in Euseb. Hist. vii. 7." [Westcott, Introd. to Study of Gospels,
Appendix C.\
5 I Cor. xvi. 22, 23.
I This short letter, like those to Lucifer, was printed at first
in Latin, evidently the almost servile rendering of a Greek original.
The latter was discovered by Montfaucon after the completion
of the Benedictine edition, and printed in his 'Nova CoUectio
Patrum' (1706). (Migne xxvi. 1185.)
The date is fixed a parte post in an interesting manner. We
read in the Life of Pachomius, § 88 (the story is also found in the
Coptic documents in the collection of Zoega p. 36), that when
Duke Artemius came to the monastery of Pabau in search of
Athanasius, the steward of the community replied, 'Although
Athanasius is our Father under God, we have never seen his face.'
The Duke answered by a request for the prayers of the brethren
before he left. The ' abbat Psarphi ' replied that the ' F'ather '
had forbidden the monks to pray with strangers who consorted
with the Arians, — a clear allusion to the letter before us. Now
Duke Artemius was in search of Athanasius in 359-60 {Fest. Ind.).
Accordingly our letter was issued before that date.
The Greek text is evidently imperfect : the square brackets in
the translation denote passages supplied from the Latin. The
first part of the letter (down to the words ' along with ' . . .) is
preserved in a contemporary inscription (Boeckh. C.I G. iv. 8607)
on the walls of an ancient Egyptian tomb at Abd-el-Kurna, which
in those later da\ s had become a monastic cell. The remainder is
effaced. (See Fialon, p. 134, who has failed to notice the identity
of the inscription with our present letter.)
" This first heading is from the inscription mentioned above,
note 1. and is important as recording a very early use of the title
'archbishop.' See also Letter 55, note x, supr. p. 137, note 6,
and Epiph. vol. ii. p. 188 c (Migne).
them], certainly they will think it a matter of
indifference and will fall into the mire of ir-
religion. Lest, then, this should happen, be
pleased, beloved, to shun those who hold the
impiety [of Arius], and moreover to avoid those
who, while they pretend not to hold with Arius,
yet worship with the impious. And we are
specially bound to fly from the communion of
men whose opinions we hold in execration.
[If then any come to you, and, as blessed
John 3 says, brings with him right doctrine, say
to him. All hail, and receive such an one as
a brother.] But if any pretend that he con-
fesses the right faith, but appear to communi-
cate with those others, exhort him to abstain
from such communion, and if he promise to
do so, treat him as a brother, but if he persist
in a contentious spirit, him avoid. [I might
greatly lengthen my letter, adding from the
divine Scriptures the outline of this teaching.
But since, being wise men, you can anticipate
those who write, and rather, being intent upon
self-denial, are fit to instruct others also, I
have dictated a short letter, as from one loving
friend to others, in the confidence] that living
as you do you will preserve a pure and sincere
faith, and that those persons, seeing that you
do not join with them in worship, will derive
benefit, fearing lest they be accounted as
impious, and as those who hold with them.
LETTER LIV.
To Scrapie n, concerning the death of Arius.
Athanasius to Serapion*, a brother and
fellow-minister, health in the Lord.
I have read the letters of your piety, in
which you have requested me to make known
to you the events of my times relating to my-
self, and to give an account of that most im-
pious heresy of the Arians, in consequence of
which I have endured these sufferings, and
3 2 John 10.
I On this letter (Migne xxv. 686) in relation to other writings, sec
above, Letter $2, note i, and pp. 267, 268. Serapion would seem to
have been the right-hand man of Athan. amongthe bishops of Egypt.
The dates of his birth and episcopate are not certain, but the tone
of the letters to him imply that he is junior to Athanasius. The
theory of Ceillier, based on a precarious inference from the words
of an untrustworthy writer (Philip of Side) that this Serapion (the
name was very common) had presided over the catechetical school
before Peter, i.e. at the end of the third century, is quite out_ of
the question. Moreover, no Serapion appears among the Egyptian
bishops at Tyre in 335 (p. 142), but the name occurs among the
M.e.xa.nAr\z.n presbyterate of the same date (pp. 139, 140), while two
bishops of the name sign the Sardican decrees (p. 127). \t is then
not unlikely that Athan. selected Serapion for the very important
(Amm. Marc. xxii. 16) see of Thmuis in the Delta between 337
and 339 (supr. Letter 12, note i). In 353 the trusted siiffragan is
chosen for a difficult and perilous mission to Constantius (supr.
pp. 497, 504). For some reason we miss his name from the list of exiles
in 356-7 (pp. 257, 297), nor is he named as present at the ' Council
of Confessors' in 362. During the third exile, however, Ath.
addressed to him our present letter, and an important dogmatic
treatise (Prolegg. ch. iii. § i, no. 22). Serapion was a friend and
legatee of S. Antony {supr. p. 220). The date of Serapion's death
is not known, but he is said to have been living after 368 (Leont.
adv. fraud. Apoll. in Galland. xii. 701, see Bright, Z<?/e>- Treat.
p. 44). For further details, and for writings ascribed to him, see
D.C.B. iv. 61.S (9). On the death of Arius, see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 5.
LIV. AD SERAPIONEM DE MORTE ARIL
565
I
also of the manner of the death of Arius.
With two out of your three demands I have
reapily undertaken to comply, and have sent
to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks ;
from which you will be able to learn my own
history as well as that of the heresy. But with
respect to the other matter, I mean the death,
I debated with myself for a long time, fearing
lest any one should suppose that I was exult-
ing in the death of that man. But yet, since
a disputation which has taken place amongst
you concerning the heresy, has issued in this
question, whether Arius died after previously
communicating with the Church; I therefore
was necessarily desirous of giving an account of
his death, as thinking that the question would
thus be set at rest, considering also that by
making this known I should at the same time
silence those who are fond of contention. For I
conceive that when the wonderful circumstances
connected with his death become known, even
those who before questioned it will no longer
venture to doubt that the Arian heresy is
hateful in the sight of God.
2. I was not at Constantinople when he
died, but Macarius the Presbyter was, and I
heard the account of it from him. Arius had
been invited by the Emperor Constantine,
through the interest of Eusebius and his
fellows ; and when he entered the presence
the Emperor enquired of him, whether he held
the Faith of the Catholic Church? And he
declared upon oath that he held the right
Faith, and gave in an account of his Faith in
writing, suppressing the points for which he
had been cast out of the Church by the
Bishop Alexander, and speciously alleging ex-
pressions out of the Scriptures. When there-
fore he swore that he did not profess the
opinions for which Alexander had excommuni-
cated him, [the Emperor] dismissed him, say-
ing^, ' If thy Faith be right, thou hast done well
to swear ; but if thy Faith be impious, and thou
hast sworn, God judge of thee according to thy
oath.* When he thus came forth from the
presence of the Emperor, Eusebius and his
fellows, with their accustomed violence, desired
to bring him into the Church. But Alex-
ander, the Bishop of Constantinople of blessed
memory, resisted them, saying that the inventor
of the heresy ought not to be admitted to
communion ; whereupon Eusebius and his
fellows threatened, declaring, ' As we have
caused him to be invited by the Emperor,
in opposition to your wishes, so to-morrow,
though it be contrary to your desire, Arius
shall have communion with us in this Church.'
It was the Sabbath when they said this.
» Ep. Mg. 18.
3. When the Bishop Alexander heard this,
he was greatly distressed, and entering into
the church, he stretched forth his hands unto
God, and bewailed himself; and casting him-
self upon his face in the chancel, he prayed,
lying upon the pavement. Macarius also was
present, and prayed with him, and heard his
words. And he besought these two things,
saying, 'If Arius is brought to communion
to-morrow, let me Thy servant depart, and
destroy not the pious with the impious ; but
if Thou wilt spare Thy Church (and I know
that Thou wilt spare), look upon the words of
Eusebius and his fellows, and give not thine
inheritance to destruction and reproach 3, and
take off Arius, lest if he enter into the Church,
the heresy also may seem to enter with him,
and henceforward impiety be accounted for
piety.' When the Bishop had thus prayed,
he retired in great anxiety; and a wonderful
and extraordinary circumstance took place.
While Eusebius and his fellows threatened,
the Bishop prayed; but Arius, who had great
confidence in Eusebius and his fellows, and
talked very wildly, urged by the necessities ot
nature withdrew, and suddenly, in the language
of Scripture, 'falling headlong he burst asunder
in the midst'^,' and immediately expired as he
lay, and was deprived both of communion and
ot his life together.
4. Such has been the end of Arius : and
Eusebius and his fellows, overwhelmed with
shame, buried their accomplice, while the
blessed Alexander, amidst the rejoicings of
the Church, celebrated the Communion with
piety and orthodoxy, praying with all the
brethren, and greatly glorifying God, not as
exulting in his death (God forbid !), for ' it is
appointed unto all men once to dies,' but
because this thing had been shewn forth in
a manner transcending human judgments. For
the Lord Himself judging between the threats
of Eusebius and his fellows, and the prayer
of Alexander, condemned the Arian heresy,
shewing it to be unworthy of communion with
the Church, and making manifest to all, that
although it receive the support of the Emperor
and of all mankind, yet it was condemned by
the Churcli herself So the antichristian gang
of the Arian madmen has been shewn to be
unpleasing to God and impious ; and many
of those who before were deceived by it
changed their opinions. For none other
than the Lord Himself who was blasphemed
by them condemned the heresy which rose up
against Him, and again shewed that howsoever
the Emperor Constantius may now use violence
to the Bishops in behalf of it, yet it is excluded
3 Joel il. 17.
4 Acts L 18.
S Heb. ix. iT.
566
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
from the communion of the Church, and aHen
from the kingdom of heaven. Wherefore also
let the question which has arisen among you
be henceforth set at rest ; (for this was the
agreement made among you), and let no one
join himself to the heresy, but let even those
who have been deceived repent. For who
shall receive what the Lord condemned? And
will not he who takes up the support of that
which He has made excommunicate, be guilty
of great impiety, and manifestly an enemy
of Christ?
5. Now this is sufficient to confound the
contentious ; read it therefore to those who
before raised this question, as well as what
was briefly addressed to the Monks against
the heresy, in order that they may be led
thereby more strongly to condemn the im-
piety and wickedness of the Arian madmen.
Do not however consent to give a copy of
these to any one, neither transcribe them for
yourself (I have signified the same to the
Monks also) ; but as a sincere friend, if any-
thing is wanting in what I have written, add
it, and immediately send them back to me.
For you will be able to learn from the letter
which I have written to the Brethren, what
pains it has cost me to write it, and also to
perceive that it is not safe for the writings of
a private person to be published (especially if
they relate to the highest and chief doctrines),
for this reason ; — lest what is imperfectly ex-
pressed through infirmity or the obscurity of
language, do hurt to the reader. For the
majority of men do not consider the faith, or
the aim of the writer, but either through envy
or a spirit of contention, receive what is
written as themselves choose, according to an
opinion which they have previously formed,
and misinterpret it to suit their pleasure.
But the Lord grant that the Truth and a
sound ^ faith in our Lord Jesus Christ may
prevail among all, and especially among those
to whom you read this. Amen.
LETTER LV.
Letter to Rufinianus.
To our lord, son, and most desired fellow-
minister Rufinianus '. Athanasius greeting in
the Lord.
* yyiaivovaav , vid. iu^. p. 71, § 5. fin.
' This letter (Migne xxvi. 1180) deals with one of the ques-
tions which occupied the council of 362 (suj>r. p. 481), and was
probably written not long after, although the contents furnish no
precise terminus ad quern. The personality and see of Rufinianus
are uncertain. The latter must have been distant from Alexan-
dria ; the Coptic documents call him ' Rufinus the archbishop,'
which seems to place him outside Egypt. The mention of Eudoxius
and Euzoius sub. Jin. possibly points to Syria. I suspect that he
is the ' Lucinianus ' associated with 'Eusebius' (of Vercella; ?) in
the little fragment ^4) quoted in note 7 below, which comes from
a letter of Ath. deahng with the same subject. The Coptic 'Acts'
You write what is proper for a beloved son
to write to a father : accordingly, I embraced
you when you came near me in writing, most
desired Rufinianus. And I, though I might
write to you as a son both in the opening and
the middle and the close, refrained, lest my
commendation and testimony should be made
known by writing. For you are my letter, as it
is written 2, known and read in the heart. That
you then are in such case, believe, yea believe.
I address you, and invite you to write. For
by doing so you afford me the highest gratifi-
cation. But since in an honourable and
church-like spirit, such as becomes your piety,
you ask me about those who were drawn away
by necessity but not corrupted by error, and
wish me to write what resolution has been
come to about them, whether in synods or
elsewhere ; know, most desired Lord, that to
begin with3, when violence was ceased, a synod*
has been held, bishops from foreign parts being
present ; while others have been held by our
fellow-ministers resident in Greece, as well as
by those in Spain and Gaul s : and the same
decision was come to here and everywhere,
namely, in the case of those who had fallen
and been leaders of impiety, to pardon them
upon their repentance, but not to give them
the position of clergy : but in the case of men
not deliberate in impiety, but drawn away by
necessity and violence, that they should not
only receive pardon, but should occupy the posi-
tion of clergy : the more so, in that they oftered
a plausible defence, and what had happened
seemed due to a certain special purpose^.
For they assured us that they had not gone
over to impiety ; but lest certain most impious
persons should be elected and ruin the
Churches they elected rather to acquiesce in
the violence and to bear the burden, than to
lose the people. But in saying this, they
appeared to us to say what was plausible ; for
they alleged in, excuse Aaron the brother of
Moses, who in the wilderness acquiesced in the
people's transgression ; and that he had had as
his excuse the danger of the people returning
to Egypt and abiding in idolatry. For there
was reason in the view, that if they remained
of Revillout, p. 462 (as referred to supr. p. i8B) give part of a letter
of Rufinianus himself, which shews that the correspondence of
which our letter is the principal relic bore on the Christological
decision of the Council of 362 : ' Sound is the idea of perfection
for the Divinity, as for the Economy of the Manhood : Sound
is the doctrine of the Divinity in a single essence. Pure, and
wholesome for the souls of the faithful, is the Confession of the
Holy Triad. Perfect then is the Economy of the Manhood of the
Saviour, and Perfect is His Soul also ; nothing is lacking to Him.
It is thus that It was manifested to us.'
3 2 Cor. iii. 2.
3 Immediately after the death of Constantius.
4 At Alexandria, A.D. 362, see above p. 481.
5 These unnamed councils are all connected with the general
return of the exiled orthodox bishops on Julian's accession. They
are possibly the same as are referred to again in the opening of the
letter to Epict. below, p. 570. * otKoi-o/ita.
LV., LVI. AD RUFINIANUM: AD JOVIANUM.
567
in the wilderness they might cease from
their impiety : but if they went into Egypt
they would become ruined and increase the
impiety in their midst. For this reason, then,
they have been allowed to rank as clergy, those
who had been deceived and suffered violence
being pardoned. I give this information to
your piety in the confidence that you will both
accept 7 what has been resolved upon, and not
charge those who assembled, as I have said,
with remissness. But be good enough to read
it to the clergy and laity under you, that they
may be informed, and may not blame you for
being thus minded about such persons. For
it would not be fitting for me to write, when
your piety is able to do so, and to announce
our mind with regard to them, and carry out
all that remains to be done. Thanks to the
Lord that filled you^ with all utterance and
with all knowledge. Let then those that re-
pent openly anathematise by name the error
of Eudoxius and Euzoius. For they blas-
phemed still, and wrote that He was a creature,
ringleaders of the Arian heresy. But let them
confess the faith confessed by the fathers at
Nicgea, and that they put no other synod
before that one. Greet the brotherhood with
you. That with us greets you in the Lord.
LETTER LVI.
To the Efnperor Jovian.
Copy of a letter of the Emperor Jovian, sent to Athan-
asius, the most holy Archbishop of Alexandria.
To the most religious and friend of God, Athanasius,
Jovian.
Admiring exceedingly the achievements of your most
honourable life, and of your likeness to the God of all,
and of your affection toward our Saviour Christ, w^e
accept you, most honoured bishop. And inasmuch as you
have not flinched from all labour, nor from the fear of
your persecutors, and, regarding dangers and threats of
the sword as dung, holding the rudder of the orthodox
faith which is dear to you, are contending even until now
for the truth, and continue to exhibit yourself as a pattern
to all the people of the faithiul, and an example of
virtue : — our imperial Majesty recalls you, and desires
that you should return to the office of the teaching of
salvation. Return then to the holy Churches, and tend
the people of God, and send up to God with zeal your
prayers for our clemency. For we know that by your
supplication we, and all who hold with us [the Christian
faith], shall have great assistance from the supreme God.
56. Lttter of Athanasius to Jovian ' concerning
the Faith.
1. A DESIRE to learn and a yearning for
7 'Do you, then, who confess all this, abstain, 1 pray, from
condemning those wrho confess the same. But Explain the words
they use, nor, igrjring the latter, repel their authors. Nayj
entreat and advise them, that they be willing to come to one mind.
ad Eus. Lucin., &c., supr. note i.
8 I Cor. i. 5.
» Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. § 9, and ch. v. § 3, h. and supr.
p. 487. Athanasius, on the first news of Julian's death, by a
secret and rapid journey, succeeded in meeuiig Jovian, when
still beyond the Euphrates on his return from the East. He thus
heavenly things is suitable to a religious
Emperor; for thus you will truly have 'your
heart ' also * in the hand of God *,' Since then
your Piety desired 3 to learn from us the faith
of the Catholic Church, giving thanks for these
things to the Lord, we counselled above all
things to remind your Piety of the iaith con-
fessed by the Fathers at Nicaea. For this
certain set at nought, while plotting against
us in many ways, because we would not com-
ply with the Arian heresy, and they have be-
come authors of heresy and schisms in the
Catholic Church. For the true and pious faith
in the Lord has become manifest to all, being
both * known and read ■* ' from the Divine
Scriptures. For in it both the saints were
made perfect and suffered martyrdom, and now
are departed in the Lord ; and the faith would
have abode inviolate always had not the
wickedness of certain heretics presumed to
tamper with it For a certain Arius and those
with him attempted to corrupt it, and to intro-
duce impiety in its place, affirming that the
Son of God was from nought, and a creature,
and a thing made and changeable. But with
these words they deceived many, so that even
' they that seemed to be somewhat were carried
away s^' with their blasphemy. And yet our
holy Fathers, as we said before, came promptly
together at the Synod at Nicaea, and anathema-
tised them, and confessed in writing the faith
of the Catholic Church, so that, this being
everywhere preached, the heresy kiridled by the
heretics might be quenched. This faith then
was everywhere in every Church sincerely
known and preached. But since now certain
who wish to renew the Arian heresy have pre-
sumed to set at nought this faith confessed at
Nicsea by the Fathers, and while pretending to
confess it, do in fact deny it, explaining away
the 'Coessential^,' and blaspheming of theirown
accord 7 against the Holy Spirit, in affirming
that It is a creature, and came into being as a
secured the ear of the new Emperor before the Arian deputation
from Alexandria could reach him. The letter before us (Migne
xxvi. 813) was drawn up at Antioch, as it would seem in response
to a request trom Jovian on a doctrinal statement. The short letter
of Jovian prefixed to the Epistle is a formal authorisation lor the
bishop's return to his see, with which, taught by his experience
under Julian, he was careful to arm himself, the documents given
as an appendix are notes made at Antioch, and carefully preserved,
of the reception given by Jovian to the Arian deputation. They are
probably the ' exemplaria' referred to in HiU. Acefli. § 14 (see note
there). Tliey are characteristic, and interesting in many ways;
among others, as shewing how accurately Jovian had been primed
by Athanasius with the leading facts of his case.
2 Prov. xxi. 1. The letter as given by Theodoret adds, ' and
you will peacefully enjoy a long reign : ' probably the words were
erased from our text on account of Jovian's premature death.
If genuine, they stamp the prediction supr. p. 487, as, at least
in part, a vaticiniuiii ex eventu.
3 Very probably orally, see Prolegg. ubi supr.
4 2 Cor. iii. 2. 5 Gal. ii. 6, 13.
6 This retcrence is explained above, Prolegg. ch. ii. §9 sub fin.
7 "AviToi, i.e. adding tiiis, as a leatute of their own, to tha
Arianism they shared with their predecessors. Acacius seems
to be specially referred to; he had just signed the Homousios
with explanations ; cf. Pseudo-Ath. dt HytoLt. Melet. tt Euseb.
568
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS
thing made by the Son, we hasten as of bounden
duty, in view of the injury resulting to the
people from such blasphemy, to hand to your
Piety the faith confessed at Nicsea ; in order
that thy religiousness may know what has been
written with all accuracy, and how far wrong
they are who teach contrary to it.
2. For know, most religious Augustus, that
these things have been preached from time im-
memorial, and this faith the Fathers who met
at Nic£ea confessed ; and to it have assented
all the Churches in every quarter, both those in
Spain, and Britain, and the Gauls, and all
Italy and Dalmatia, Dacia and Moesia, Mace-
donia and all Greece, and in all Africa and
Sardinia, and Cyprus and Crete, as well as
Pamphylia, Lycia and Isauria, and those in
Egypt and the Libyas, Pontus and Cappadocia,
and those near at hand to us ^, and the
Churches in the East, except a few who hold
with Arius. For of all those above mentioned
we have both learnt the opinion by experience,
and we have letters. And you know, O most
religious Augustus, that even if some few speak
against this faith, they cannot create a de-
murrers, inasmuch as the whole world ^° holds
the Apostolic faith. For they having long been
infected by the Arian heresy, now the more
obstinately oppose the truth. And that your
Piety may know, although you know already,
yet we hasten to append the faith confessed by
the Bishops at Nicasa. The faith then con-
fessed at Nicaea by the Fathers is as fol-
lows :—
3. We believe", &c., &c.
4. By this faith, Augustus, all must needs
abide, as Divine and Apostohc, and none must
unsettle it by plausibilities, and contentions
about words, which is what the Arian madmen
have done, saying that the Son of God is from
nought, and that once there was when He was
not, and that He is created, and made and
changeable. For for this cause, as we said
before, the Synod at Nicaea anathematised such
heresy, but confessed the faith of the truth.
For they have not merely said that the Son is
like " the Father, lest He should be beUeved
merely like God, instead of Very God from
God ; but they wrote ' Coessential,' which was
peculiar to a genuine and true Son, truly
and naturally from the Father. Nor yet did
they make the Holy Spirit alien from the
8 This points to Antioch as the place of composition, which is
fairly certain on other grounds.
9 TrpoKpifia, a 'praejudicium' or prima facie objection in their
favour.
'° A pardonable exaggeration, but its very use is significant ;
cf. de Syn. 33, and Blight's note, Later Treatises, p. 20.
" Ut supr. p. 75 ; the other authorities for the text of the
creed in )Iahn § 73, note. Cf. Hort, p. 54 j(?^. The only important
variant here not noticed by Hort \%rov 'iva. Kvpiov.
'3 See above, pp. 83 and 84, note 4, also I'rolegg. ii. § 8 (2) b.
Father and the Son, but rather glorified Him
together with the Father and the Son, in the
one faith of the Holy Triad, because there is in
the Holy Triad also one Godhead.
APPENDIX TO LETTER LVI.
Petition made at Antioch to Jovian the Emperor on
the part of Lucius' and Bernicianus, and certain other
Arians against Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.
Firsi Petition which they 7nade as the Emperor was
departing to Camp, at the Roman Gate.
May it please your Might and your Majesty and your
Piety to hear us. The Emperor: 'Who are you and
where from?' The Arians: 'Christians, my Lord.'
Emperor: 'Where from, and from what city?' The
Arians: 'Alexandria.' — Etnperor: ' What do you want?'
The Arians: 'May it please your Might and your
Majesty, give us a Bishop.' Emperor: 'I ordered the
former one, whom you had before, Athanasius, to occupy
the See.' The Arians : ' May it please your Might : he
has been many years both in banishment, and under
accusation.' Suddenly a soldier answered in indigna-
tion : 'May it piease your Majesty, enquire of tliem
who they are and where from, for these are the leavings
and refuse of Cappadocia, the remains of that unholy
George who desolated the city and the world.' The
Emperor on hearing this set spurs to his horse, and
departed to the Camp.
Second Petition of the Arians.
' We have accusations and clear proofs against Atha-
nasius, in that ten and twenty years ago he was deprived
by the ever memorable Constantine and Constantius, and
incurred banishment under the most religious and phi-
losophical and blessed Julian.' Emperor: 'Accusations
ten, twenty, and thirty years old are now obsolete.
Don't speak to me about Athanasius, for I know why
he was accused, and how he was banished.'
Third Petition of the Arians.
' And now again, we have certain other accusations
against Athanasius.' Eviperor: ' The rights of the case
will not appear by means of crowded numbers, and
clamours, but choose two from yourselves, and from the
party of the majority other two, for I cannot answer
each one severally.' Those from the majority: 'These
are the leavings from the unholy George, who desolated
our province, and who would not allow a counsellor to
dwell in the cities.' The Arians: 'May it please you,
any one you will except Athanasius.' E7)iperor: ' I told
you that the case of Athanasius was already settled,'
(and then angrily) ' feri, feri - ! ' The Arians : ' May it
please you, if you send Athanasius, our city is ruined,
and no one assembles with him.' Eviperor: ' Yet I took
pains, and ascertained that he holds right opinions and is
orthodox, and teaches aright.' The Arians: 'With his
mouth he utters what is right, but in his soul he ,
harbours guile.' Emperor: 'That will do, you have ^
testified of him, that he utters what is right and teaches
aright, but if he teaches and speaks aright with his
tongue, but harbours evil thoughts in his soul, it con-
cerns him before God. For we are men, and hear
what is said ; but what is in the heart God knows. ' The
Arians: 'Authorise our holding communion together.'
Emperor: 'Why, who prevenis you?' The Arians:
' May it please you, he proclaims us as sectarians and
dogmatisers.' Emperor: ' It is his duty, and that of
those who teach aright.' The Arians: 'May it please
your Might ; we cannot bear this man, and he has taken
1 Originally Arian deacon (p. 70), and presently bishop of the
Arians at Alexandria ; see Hist. AceJ>h. p. 499, and Prolegg. ch. ii.
§ 10.
2 i.e. strike, strike I probably a direction to the guard to silence
the petitioners.
LVIL, LVIII. AD ORSISIUM.
569
away the lands of the Churches.' Emperor: 'Oh
then, it is on account of property you are come here,
and not on account of the faith' — then he added — 'go
away, and keep the peace.' Once more lie added to
the Arians : ' Go away to the Church, to-morrow you
have a Communion, and after the dismissal, there
are Bishops here, and here is Nemesinus^, each one of
you shall sign as he believes : Athanasius is here too ;
whoever does not know the word of faith, let him learn
from Athanasius. You have to-morrow and the day
after, for I am going out to Camp.' And a certain
lawyer* l)elonging to the Cynics petitioned the Emperor :
' May it please your Majesty, on account of Bishop
Athanasius, the Receiver-General 5 seized my houses.'
Emperor: 'If the Receiver-General seized your houses
what has that to do with Athanasius ? ' Another lawyer,
Patalas, said : ' I have a complaint against Athanasius.'
Emperor : ' And what have you to do with Christians,
being a heathen? ' But certain of the majority of them
of Antioch took Lucius and brought him to the Em-
peror, saying : ' May it please your Might and your
Majesty, look whom they wanted to make a Bishop ! '
Another petUioti viade at the porch of the palace^ on the
part of Lucius: — ' May it please your Might, listen to me.'
The Emperor stopped and said : ' I ask you, Lucius, how
did you come here, by sea or by land ? ' Lucius : ' May
it please you, by sea.' Emperor: 'Well, Lucius, may
the God of the world, and the radiant sun, and moon,
be angry with those men that made the voyage with you,
for not casting you into the sea ; and may that ship
never again have fair winds, nor find a haven with her
passengers when in a storm.' And through Euzoius^
the unbelieving Arians asked Probatius and his fellows,
the successors of Eusebius^ and Bardio as eunuchs, that
they might be granted an audience. The Emperor
learned this, and tortured the eunuclis and said : 'If
any one wants to make a petition against Christians
let this be his fate.' And so the Emperor dismissed
them.
LETTER LVII.
First Letter to Orsisius ',
' And having spent a few days there, he saith
to the Abbat Theodorus : Since the Passover is
nigh, visit the brethren after your manner ; and
as the Lord shall dispose me, I will do. And
he embraced him, and sent him away, having
written a letter by him to the Abbat Orsisius
and the brethren, to the following effect :' —
I have seen your fellow-worker and father of
the brethren, Theodorus, and in him the
master of our father Pachomius. And I
rejoiced to see the sons of the Church, and
they made me glad by their presence. But
the Lord is their recompenser. And as Theo-
dorus was about to leave me for you, he said to
me: Remember me. And 1 saitl to him : If I
3 Possibly an imperial notary or registiar, see D.C.B. ir. 15.
4 2X0'^«CTTIK0S. S KoMoKl-KOI.
6 111 ihe New Town, on the island of the Orontes.
7 Originally one of the Arian clergy of AlexaiiGiia (supr. p. 70),
now Ariau bisiiop of Antioch. ^ Hist. Ar. 35, &c.
I Orsisius was chosen abbat of Tabenne in Upper Egypt,
A.D. 347, in succession to Petronius. Presently, however, he
resigned in favour of Theodorus, the favourite (J:si.iple ol I'acho-
mius. The two letters which follow are from the life of Pacho-
mius, §§ 92, 96, Acta SS. for May, vol. iii. (Also in Migne
xxvi. 977.) They belong, the first to the year 363 A.D., not long
before the death of Julian (D.C.B. i. 199a), the second to the
summer of the oUowing year, 364 (/«/r. note 3). Both letters
are characteristi<. ; the second a moving and simple consolation
to mourners.
forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand be
forgotten, yea let my tongue cleave to my throat
if 1 remember thee not ^
LETTER LVIII.
Second Letter to Orsisius,
* But the most holy Archbishop Athanasius,
when he heard about our father Theodorus,
was grieved, and sent this letter to the Abbat
Orsisius and the brethren to console them for
his decease, as follows :' —
Athanasius to Orsisius, Abbat, father of
monks, and to all with him who practise the
solitary life, and are settled in faith in God,
beloved brethren most longed for in the Lord,
greeting.
I have heard about the decease of the blessed
Theodorus 3, and the tidings caused me great
anxiety, knowing as I did his value to you.
Now if it had not been Theodorus, I should
have used many words to you, with tears, con-
sidering what follows after death. But since
it is Theodorus whom you and I have known,
what need I say in my letter save ' Blessed is '
Theodorus, ' who hath not walked in the
council of the ungodly* ? ' But if ' he is blessed
that feareth the Lord 5,' we may now con-
fidently call him blessed, having the firm assur-
ance that he has reached as it were a haven,
and has a life without care. Would that the
same had also befallen each one of us ; would
that each of us in his running might thus
arrive ; would that each of us, on his voyage,
might moor his own bark there in the storm-
less haven, so that, at rest with the fathers, he
might say, ' here will I dwell, for I have a
delight therein^.' Wherefore, brethren beloved
and most longed-for, weep not for Theo-
dorus, for he ' is not dead, but sleepeth ?.'
* Ps. cxxxvii. 6, LXX.
3 On Theodore see Amelineau, 5". Pak/iflme, S'C, pp. xcv.
— xcvii. The death of Iheodore is fixed for April 27, 364, on
the loUowing grounds. He died {Vit. Fackoin. 95) of a short
and sudden illness, on Pachon 2 (April 27), and shortly after Easier.
Moreover his death took place 18 years after that of Pachomius.
But Ammon (as he tells us himself, suj>r. p. 487) became a Christ-
ian and a monk 'a year and more ' after March 15, 351 (proclama-
tion of Callus as Ca;sar),and six years after the death ot Pachomius.
{Ep. Anivi. 4, 5.) This dates the latter event a little less than
Jive years bcjore March 15, 351. But Pachomius died, according
to his Lije, on I'achon 14 (May 9), of an epidemic which attacked
the community after Easter. This double condition is satisfied by
the year 346, in which Easter fell on I'l.ariii. 4, lorty days before
ti.e day ot Pachomius' ccnase. If then Pachonmis died in 346,
Theodore died in 364. Against this result we have (i) the fact that
in that year April 27 was twenty-three days after Easter ; but the
Easter gathering of the monks would last over April ii 1 Low
Sunday), and the death ot Iheodore would come suddenly enough
a fortnight later ; (2) the fragment {supr. p. 551J probafcly belonging
to Letter 39, which a Coptic life of Theodore makes him state thac
he received before his last Easter. But this cannot Le correct ; for
all known data forbid us to place the death of Theodore as late as
367. iTillemonts tentative opinion, vii. 691, 761, is bound up with
an obsolete chronology of the exiles of Atlian.) On the other
hand Theodore cannot have died as early as 303. Athanasius was
with him (supr. p. 487I in the summer of that year, and when our
present letter was written Ath. had clearly kept Easter at home,
which suits 364, but excludes 363. •• Ps. i. i-
5 Ps cxii. I. " lb. cxxxii. 14. 7 M..tt. ix. 24-
570
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
Let none weep when he remembers him,
but imitate his life. For one must not
grieve over one that is gone to the place
where grief is not. This I write to you all
in common ; but especially to you, beloved
and most longed-for Orsisius, in order that,
now that he is fallen asleep, you may take up
the whole charge, and take his place among the
brethren. For while he survived, you two were
as one, and when one was away, the work of
both was carried on : and when both were there
you were as one, discoursing to the beloved
ones what made for their good. Thus act,
then, and so doing write and tell me of the
safety of yourself and of the brotherhood. And
I exliort you all to pray together that the Lord
may grant further peace to the Churches. For
we now kept festival with joy, both Easter and
Pentecost, and we rejoice in the benefits of the
Lord. I write to you all. Greet all who fear
the Lord. I'hose with me greet you. I pray
that you may be well in the Lord, beloved and
much-longed-for brethren.
LETTER LIX.
To Epicietus.
To my Lord, beloved brother, and most-
longed-for fellow-minister Epictetus *, Athana-
sius greeting in the Lord. 1 thought that all
vain talk of all heretics, many as they may be,
had been stopped by the Synod which was
held at Nicsea. For the Faith there confessed
by the Fathers according to the divine Scrip-
tures is enough by itself at once to overthrow
all impiety, and to establish the religious belief
in Christ. For this reason at the present time,
at the assembling of diverse synods, both in
» Of Epictetus, bishop of Corinth, nothing else is known. This
letter reflects the uncertainty, which attenaed the victory of the
Nicene Creed, as to the relation of the Historical Christ to the
Eternal Son. The questions raised at Corinth were those which
troubled the Eastern Church generally, and which came to a head
in the system oi Apollinarius, whose distinctive tenet, however,
is not mentioned in this letter. Persons anxious to place the
Nicene doctrine in intelligible connection with the matter of the
Gospel Narrative had debated the question before Epictetus, and
with deference to his ruling. Their tentative solutions (.§ 2 in/r.)
fall into two classes, both of which, in attempting to solve the
problem, proceed upon the assumption incidentally combated by
Athan. , that the Manhood of Christ was a Hypostasis or Person,
which if invested with Divine attributes, would introduce a fourth
hypostatic entity into the Trinity. To avoid this, one class identi-
fied the Logos and the 'AvOpioTros, either by assuming that the
Logos was changed into flesh, or that the flesh was itself non-
natural and of the Divine Essence. The other class excluded the
Man Jesus from the Trinity, explaining His relation to God on
the lines of Photinus or the later Nestorians. Both alternatives
are already glanced at {supr. p. 485) by the Council of 362.
In the present case, both classes of suggestions seem to have
been made tentatively and btinafide (§ 12). The letter must have
been writtenljefore the two books against ApoUinarianism, which
(if genuine) fall about 372. Its more exact date depends on the
identification of the Councils referred to in §1 iyiiv •yei'OfieVojr),
and is therefore very doubtful. At any rate ApoUinarianism proper
is not alluded to, and ApoUinarius is said to have expressed to
Serapion of Tlimuis his high opinion of our Letter (see Letter 54,
note i). It was much quoted in the Christological controversies
of the next 80 years, e.g. by the Councils of Ephesus and Chal-
cedoD, by Theodoret, Cyril, and Leo the Great (see Migne
xxvi. 1050; Bright, Later Treatises, pp. 43 ;;., and D.C.B. s.v.
Epictetus and Apollinaris the younser).
Gaul and Spain, and great Rome ', all wha
came together, as though moved by one spirit,
unanimously anathematised those who still
were secretly holding with Arius, namely
Auxentius of Milan, Ursacius, Valens, and
Gains of Pannonia, And they wrote every-
where, that, whereas the above-said were devis-
ing the names of synods to cite on their side,
no synod should be cited in the CathoHc
Church save only that which was held at
Nicaea, which was a monument of victory over
all heresy, but especially the Arian, which was
the main reason of the synod assembling when
it did. How then, after all this, are some
attempting to raise doubts or questions ? If
they belong to the Arians, this is not to be
wondered at, that they find fault with what was
drawn up against themselves, just as the
Gentiles when they hear that * the idols of the
heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's
hands 3,' think the doctrine of the divine Cross
folly. But if those who desire to reopen every-
thing by raising questions belong to those who
think they believe aright, and love what the
fathers have declared, they are simply doing
what the prophet describes, giving their
neighbour turbid confusion to drink -*, and
fighting about words to no good purpose, save
to the subversion of the simple.
2. I write this after reading the memoranda
submitted by your piety, which I could wish
had not been written at all, so that not even any
record of these things should go down to
posterity. For who ever yet heard the like?
Who ever taught or learned it ? For ' from Sion
shall come forth the law of God, and the word
of the Lord from Jerusalem s ; ' but whence
came forth this? What lower region has
vomited the statement that the Body born of
Mary is coessential with the Godliead of the
Word ? or that the Word has been changed
into flesh, bones, hair, and the whole body, and
altered from its own nature? Or who ever
heard in a Church, or even from Christians,
that the Lord wore a body putatively, not in
nature ; or who ever went so far in impiety as
to say and hold, that this Godhead, which is
coessential with the Father, was circumcised
and became imperfect instead of perfect ; and
that what hung upon the tree was not the body,
but the very creative Essence and Wisdom?
Or who that hears that the Word transformed
for Himself a passible body, not of Mary, but
of His own Essence, could call him who said
this a Christian ? Or who devised this abomin-
able impiety, for it to enter even his imagina-
» Are these those referred to in the letter to Ruf., and held a.d.
362-3, or are they to be identified with one or other of those held
under Damasus (see Introd. to ad. Afros. )'i 3 Ps. cxv. 4.
4 Hab. ii. 15, LXX. 5 Isa. ii. 3 ; Mif. iv 2.
LIX. AD EPICTETUM.
571
tion, and for him to say that to pronounce the
Lord's Body to be of Mary is to hold a
Tetrad instead of a Triad in the Godhead?
Those who think thus, saying that the Body of
the Saviour which He put on from Mary, is of
the Essence of the Triad. Or whence again
have certain vomited an impiety as great as
those aheady mentioned ; saying namely, that
the body is not newer than the Godhead of
the Word, but was coeternal with it always,
since it was compounded of the Essence of
Wisdom. Or how did men called Christians
venture even to doubt whether the Lord, Who
proceeded from Mary, while Son of God by
Essence and Nature, is of the seed of Uavid
according to the iiesh ^, and of the flesh of the
Holy Mary ? Or who have been so venturesome
as to say that Christ Who suffered in the flesh
and was crucified is not Lord, Saviour, God, and
Son of the Father ^ ? Or how can they wish
to be called Christians who say that the Word
has descended upon a holy man as upon one
of the prophets, and has not Himself become
man, taking the body from Mary ; but that
Christ is one person, while the Word of God,
Who before Mary and before the ages was
Son of the Father, is another ? Or how can they
be Christians who say that the Son is one, and
the Word of God another ?
3. Such were the contents of the memo-
randa ; diverse statements, but one in their
sense and in their meaning; tending to im-
piety. It was for these things that men who
make their boast in the confession of the
fathers drawn up at Nicsea were disputing and
quarrelling with one another. But I marvel
that your piety suhered it, and that you did
not stop those who said such things, and pro-
pound to them the right faith, so that upon
hearing it they might hold their peace, or if
they opposed it might be counted as heretics.
For the statements are not fit for Christians to
make or to hear, on the contrary they are in
every way alien from the Apostolic teaching.
For this reason, as I said above, 1 have caused
what they say to be baldly mserted in my
letter, so that one who merely hears may per-
ceive the shame and impiety therein contained.
And although it would be right to denounce
and expose m full the folly of those who have
had such ideas, yet it would be a good thing
to close my letter here and write no more.
For what is so manifestly shewn to be evil, it
is not necessary to waste time in exposmg
further, lest contentious persons think the
matter doubtful. It is enough merely to
answer such things as follows : we are content
6 Rom. i. 3.
7 This opinion seems to belong to that next to be mentioned,
the two, however, are leparately dealt with below, cc. lo and ii.
with the fact that this is not the teaching 01
the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold
this. But lest the ' inventors of evil things ^ '
make entire silence on our part a pretext for
shamelessncss, it will be well to mention a few
points from Holy Scripture, in case they may
even thus be put to shame, and cease from
these foul devices.
4. Whence did it occur to you, sirs, to say
that the Body is of one Essence with the
Godhead of the Word ? For it is well to begin
at this point, in order that by shewing this
opinion to be unsound, all the others too may
be proved to be the same. Now from the
divine Scriptures we discover nothing of the
kind. For they say that God came in a human
body. But the fathers who also assembled at
Nicaea say that, not the body, but the Son
Himself is coessential with the Father, and
that while He is of the Essence of the Father,
the body, as they admitted according to the
Scriptures, is of Mary. Either then deny the
Synod of Nicaea, and as heretics bring in your
doctrine from the side ; or, if you wish to be
children of the fathers, do not hold the con-
trary of what they wrote. For here again you
may see how monstrous it is : If the Word
is coessential with the body which is of
earthly nature, while the Word is, by your
own confession, coessential with the Father,
it will follow that even the Father Himself
is coessential with the body produced from
the earth. And why any longer blame the
Arians for calling the Son a creature, when
you go off to another form of impiety, sa)nng
that the Word was changed into flesh and
bones and hair and muscles and all the body,
and was altered from its own nature ? For it
is time for you to say openly that He was born
of earth; for from earth is the nature of the
bones and of all the body. What then is this
great folly of yours, that you fight even with
one another ? For in saying that the Word is
coessential with the Body, you distinguish
the one from the others, while in saying that
He has been changed into flesh, you imagine
a change of the Word Himself. And who will
tolerate you any longer if you so much as utter
these opinions? For you have gone further
in impiety than any heresy. For if the
Word is coessential with the Body, the com-
memoration and the work of Mary are super-
fluous '°, inasmuch as the body could have
existed before Mary, just as the Word also is
eternal : if, that is, it is as you say co-
essential with the Body. Or what need was
there even of the Word coming among us, to
put on what was coessential with Himself,
8 Rom. i. 30. 9 erepov trpo; irtpov oiiiicUytTe.
»o Leiier 6i, § 3.
572
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
or to change His own nature and become a
body ? For the Deity does not take hold " of
itself, so as to put on what is of its own
Essence, any more than the Word sinned, in
that it ransoms the sins of others, in order that
changing into a body it should offer itself a
sacrifice for itself, and ransom itself.
5. But this is not so, far be the thought.
For he 'takes hold of the seed of Abraham ",'
as the apostle said ; whence it behoved Hijii
to be made like His brethren in all things, and
to take a Body like us. This is why Mary is
truly presupposed, in order that He may take
it from her, and offer it for us as His own.
And this Isaiah pointed to in his prophecy, in
the words : ' Behold the Virgin *^,' while Gabriel
is sent to her — not simply to a virgin, but * to
a virgin betrothed to a man '3^' in order that
by means of the betrothed man he might shew
that Mary was really a human being. And for
this reason Scripture also mentions her bringing
forth, and tells of her wrapping Him in swad-
dling clothes ; and therefore, too, the paps
which He sucked were called blessed ^ And
He was offered as a sacrifice, in that He Who
was born had opened the womb 2. Now all
these things are proofs that the Virgin brought
forth. And Gabriel preached the Gospel to
her without uncertainty, saying not merely
' what is born in thee,' lest the body should be
thought to be extraneously induced upon her,
but 'of thee,' that what was born might be
believed to be naturally from her, inasmuch as
Nature clearly shews that it is impossible for a
virgin to produce milk unless she has brought
forth, and impossible for a body to be nour-
ished with milk and wrapped in swaddling
clothes unless it has previously been naturally
brought forth. This is the meaning of His
being circumcised on the eighth day : of Sy-
meon taking Him in his arms, of His becoming
a young child, and growing when He was
twelve years old, and of His coming to His
thirtieth year. For it was not, as some sup-
pose, the very Essence of the Word that was
changed, and was circumcised, because it is
incapable of alteration or change. For the
Saviour Himself says, ' Behold, behold, it is I,
and I change not 3,' while Paul writes : 'Jesus
Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for
evert' But in the Body which was circum-
cised, and carried, and ate and drank, and was
weary, and was nailed on the tree and suffered,
there was the impassible and incorporeal Word
of God. This Body it was that was laid in a
grave, when the Word had left it, yet was not
« Heb. ii. 16.
' lb. xi. 27.
" Isa. vii. 14.
* lb. ii. 23,
4 Heb. xiii. 8.
'3 Luke i. 27.
3 Mai. iii. 6.
parted from it, to preach, as Peter says, also
to the spirits in prison s.
6. And this above all shews the foolish-
ness of those who say that the Word was
changed into bones and flesh. For if this had
been so, there were no need of a tomb.
For the Body would have gone by itself to
preach to the spirits in Hades. But as it was,
He Himself went to preach, while the Body
Joseph wrapped in a linen cloth, and laid it
away at Golgotha ^. And so it is shewn to all
that the Body was not the Word, but Body ot
the Word. And it was this that Thomas
handled when it had risen from the dead, and
saw in it the print of the nails, which the Word
Himself had undergone, seeing them fixed
in His own Body, and though able to prevent it,
did not do so. On the contrary, the incor-
poreal Word made His own the properties of
the Body, as being His own Body. Why, when
the Body was struck by the attendant, as suffer-
ing Himself He asked, ' Why smitest thou
Me 7?' And being by nature intangible, the
Word yet said, 'I gave My back to the stripes,
and My cheeks to blows, and hid not My face
from shame and spitting 3.' For what the
human Body of the Word suffered, this the
Word, dwelling in the body, ascribed to Him-
self, in order that we might be enabled to be
partakers of the Godhead of the Word 9. And
verily it is strange that He it was Who suffered
and yet suffered not. Suffered, because His
own Body suffered, and He was in it, which thus
suffered ; suffered not, because the Word, being
by Nature God, is impassible. And while He,
the incorporeal, was in the passible Body, the
Body had in it the impassible Word, which was
destroying the infirmities inherent in the Body.
But this He did, and so it was, in order that
Himself taking what was ours and offering it
as a sacrifice, He might do away with it,
and conversely might invest us with what was
His, and cause the Apostle to say : ' This cor-
ruptible must put on incorruption, and this
mortal put on immortality'.'
7. Now this did not come to pass putatively,
as some have supposed : far be the thought :
but the Saviour having in very truth become
Man, the salvation of the whole man was
brought about. For if the Word were in the
Body putatively, as they say, and by putative
is meant imaginary, it follows that both the
salvation and the resurrection of man is apparent
only, as the most impious Manichaeus held.
But truly our salvation is not merely apparent,
nor does it extend to the body only, but the
whole man, body and soul alike, has truly
S I Pet.
8 Isa. 1. 6.
XV. S3.
iii. 19. ^ Mark xv. 46. 7 Job. xviii. 23.
9 2 Pet. L 4, above, p. 65, note 5. ' i Cor.
LIX. AD EPICTETUM.
573
obtained salvation in the Word Himself. That
then which was born of Mary was according to
the divine Scriptures human by nature, and the
Body of the Lord was a true one ; but it was
this, because it was the same as our body, for
Mary was our sister inasmuch as we all are from
Adam. And no one can doubt of this when he
remembers what Luke wrote. For after He
had risen from the dead, when some thought
that they did not see the Lord in the body
derived from Mary, but were beholding a spirit
instead, He said, 'See My hands and My feet,
and the prints of the nails, that it is I Myself:
handle Me and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh
and bones as ye see Me to have. And when
He had said thus. He shewed them His hands
and His feet ^' Whence they can be refuted
who have ventured to say that the Lord was
transformed- into flesh and bones. For He did
not say, 'As ye see Me to be flesh and bone,'
but ' as ye see Me to have,' in order that it
might not be thought that the Word Himself
was changed into these things, but that He
might be believed to have them after His resur-
rection as well as before His death.
8. These things being thus demonstrated, it
is superfluous to touch upon the other points, or
to enter upon any discussion relating to them,
since the body in which the Word was is not
coessential with the Godhead, but was truly
born of Mary, while the Word Himself was not
changed into bones and flesh, but came in the
flesh. For what John said, 'The Word was
made flesh?,' has this meaning, as we may see
by a similar passage ; for it is written in Paul :
'Christ has become a curse for us+.' And just as
He has not Himself become a curse, but is said
to have done so because He took upon Him
the curse on our behalf, so also He has become
flesh not by being changed into flesh, but
because He assumed on our behalf living flesh,
and has become Man. For to say 'the Word be-
came flesh,' is equivalent to saying ' the Word
has become man ; ' according to what is said in
Joel : ' I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all
flesh S;' for the promise did not extend to the
irrational animals, but is for men, on whose
account the Lord is become Man. As then
this is the sense of the above text, they all will
reasonably condemn themselves who have
thought that the flesh derived from Mary
existed before her, and that the Word, prior to
her, had a human soul, and existed in it always
even before His coming. And they too will
cease who have said that the Flesh was not
accessible to death, but belonged to the im-
mortal Nature. For if it did not die, how
' Luke xxiv. 39.
3 Joh. i. 14.
S Joel ii. 28.
4 G«l. iii. 13.
could Paul deliver to the Corinthians 'that
Christ died for our sins, according to the Scrip-
tures V or how did He rise at all if He did not
also die? Again, they will blush deeply who
have even entertained the possibility of a
Tetrad instead of a Triad resulting, if it were
said that the Body was derived from Mary.
For if (they argue) we say the Body is of one
Essence with the Word, the Triad remains a
Triad ; for then the Word imports no foreign
element into it ; but if we admit that the Body
derived from Mary is human, it follows, since
the Body is foreign in Essence, and the Word
is in it, that the addition of the Body causes a
Tetrad instead of a Triad.
9. When they argue thus, they fail to per-
ceive the contradiction in which they involve
themselves. For even though they say that the
Body is not from Mary, but is coessential
with the Word, yet none the less (the very
point they dissemble, to avoid being credited
with their real opinion) this on their own
premises can be proved to involve a Tetrad.
For as the Son, according to the Fathers,
is coessential with the Father, but is not the
Father Himself, but is called coessential, as
Son with Father, so the Body, which they call
coessential with the Word, is not the VVord
Himself, but a distinct entity. But if so,
on their own shewing, their Triad will be a
Tetrad 7. For the true, really perfect and
indivisible Triad is not accessible to addition
as is the Triad imagined by these persons.
And how do these remain Christians who
imagine another God in addition to the true
one ? For, once again, in their other fallacy one
can see how great is their folly. For if they
think because it is contained and stated in the
Scriptures, that the Body of the Saviour is
human and derived from Mary, that a Tetrad
is substituted for a Triad, as though the
Body created an addition, they go very far
wrong, so much so as to make the creature equal
to the Creator, and suppose that the Godhead
can receive an addition. And they have failed
to perceive that the VVord is become Flesh, not
by reason of an addition to the Godhead, but
in order that the flesh may rise again. Nor
did the Word proceed from Mary that He
might be bettered, but that He might ransom
the human race. How then can they think
that the Body, ransomed and quickened by the
Word, made an addition in respect of God-
head to the Word that had quickened it ? For
on the contrary, a great addition has accrued to
the human Body itself from the fellowship and
* I Cor. XV. 3.
7 The argument rests on the principle that the Trinity is
a trinity of Persons, not of Essences : the opponents implicitly
tax the Nicene doctrine with the consequence that if truly man,
Christ is a distinct Perstnality Irom the Son.
574
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
union of the Word with it. For instead of
mortal it is become immortal ; and, though an
animal ^ body, it is become spiritual, and though
made from earth it entered the heavenly gates.
The Triad, then, although the Word took a
body from Mary, is a Triad, being inaccessible
tt) addition or diminution ; but it is always per-
fect, and in the Triad one Godhead is recog-
nised, and so in the Church one God is
preached, the Father of the Word.
ID. For this reason they also will henceforth
keep silence, who once said that He who pro-
ceeded from Mary is not very Christ, or Lord,
or God. For if He were not God in the Body,
how came He, upon proceeding from Mary,
straightway to be called ' Emmanuel, which is
being interpreted God with us9?' Why again,
if the Word was not in the flesh, did Paul
write to the Romans ' of whom is Christ after
the flesh. Who is above all God blessed for
ever. Amen'?' Let them therefore confess,
even they who previously denied that the
Crucified was God, that they have erred ; for
the divine Scriptures bid them, and especially
Thomas, who, after seeing upon Him the print
of the nails, cried out ' My Lord and my
God ^ ! ' For the Son, being God, and Lord
of glory3, was in the Body which was inglo-
riously nailed and dishonoured; but the Body,
while it suffered, being pierced on the tree,
and water and blood flowed from its side, yet
because it was a temple of the Word was
filled full of the Godhead. For this reason it
was that the sun, seeing its creator suffering in
His outraged body, withdrew its rays and
darkened the earth. But the body itself being
of mortal nature, beyond its own nature rose
again by reason of the Word which was in it ;
and it has ceased from natural corruption, and,
having put on the Word which is above man,
has become incorruptible.
II. But with regard to the imagination of
some, who say that the Word came upon one
particular man, the Son of Mary, just as it
came upon each of the Prophets, it is super-
fluous to discuss it, since their madness carries
its own condemnation manifestly with it. For
if He came thus, whv was that man born of
a virgin, and not like others of a man and
woman? For in this way each of the saints
• also was begotten. Or why, if the Word came
thus, is not the death of each one said to have
taken place on our behalf, but only this man's
death ? Or why, if the Word sojourned among
us in the case of each one of the prophets, is
it said only in the case of Him born of Mary
that He sojourned here ' once at the consum-
8 ^Iruxticiv.
' John XX. 28
9 Matt. i. 93.
' Rom. ix. 5.
3 I Cor. ii. 8.
mation of the ages*?' Or why, if He came
as He had come in the saints of former times,
did the Son of Mary alone, while all the rest
had died without rising as yet, rise again on
the third day? Or why, if the Word had come
in like manner as He had done in the other
cases, is the Son of Mary alone called Em-
manuel, as though a Body filled full of the
Godhead were born of her? For Emmanuel
is interpreted ' God with us.' Or why, if He
came thus, is it not said that when each of the
saints ate, drank, laboured, and died, that He
(the Word) ate, drank, laboured, and died, but
only in the case of the Son of Mary. For
what that Body suffered is said to have been
suffered by the Word. And while we are
merely told of the others that they were born,
and begotten, it is said in the case of the Son
of Mary alone that ' The Word was made
Flesh.'
12. This proves that while to all the others
the Word came, in order that they might
prophesy, from Mary the Word Himself took
flesh, and proceeded forth as man ; being by
nature and essence the Word of God, but
after the flesh man of the seed of David, and
made of the flesh of Mary, as Paul saids. Him
the Father pointed out both in Jordan and on
the Mount, saying, ' This is My beloved Son
in whom I am well pleased^.' Him the Arians
denied, but we recognising worship, not di-
viding the Son and the Word, but knowing
that the Son is the Word Himself, by Whom
all things are made, and by Whom we were
redeemed. And for this reason we wonder
how any contention at all has arisen among
you about things so clear. But thanks to the
Lord, much as we were grieved at reading
your memoranda, we were equally glad at their
conclusion. For they departed with concord,
and peacefully agreed in the confession of the
pious and orthodox faith. This fact has in-
duced me, after much previous consideration,
to write these few words ; for I am anxious
lest by my silence this matter should cause
pain rather than joy to those whose concord
occasions joy to ourselves. I therefore ask
your piety in the first place, and secondly
those who hear, to take my letter in good
part, and if anything is lacking in it in respect
of piety, to set that right, and inform me.
But if it is written, as from one unpractised in
speech, below the subject and imperfectly, let
all allow for my feebleness in speaking. Greet
all the brethren with you. All those with us
greet you ; may you live in good health in the
Lord, beloved and truly longed for.
4 Heb. ix. 26.
iii. 17, and xvii. s-
5 Cf. Rom. i. 3 Gal. W. 4.
* Matt
LX. AD ADELPHIUM.
575
LETTER LX.
To AdeUhius'^, Bishop and Cofifessor: against
the Avians.
We have read what your piety has written to
us, and genuinely approve your piety toward
Christ. And above all we glorify God, Who
has given you such grace as not only to
have right opinions, but also, so far as that is
possible, not to be ignorant of the devices'* of
the devil. But we marvel at the perversity of the
heretics, seeing that they have fallen into such
a pit of impiety that they no longer retain even
tlieir senses, but have their understanding cor-
rupted on all sides. But this attempt is a plot
of the devil, and an imitation of the disobe-
dient Jews. For as the latter, when refuted
on all sides, kept devising excuses to their own
hurt, if only they could deny the Lord and
bring upon themselves what was prophesied
against them, in like manner these men, seeing
themselves proscribed on all hands, and per-
ceiving that their heresy has become abomin-
able to all, prove themselves ' inventors of evil
things ^,' in order that, not ceasing their fight-
ings against the truth, they may remain con-
sistent and genuine adversaries of Christ. For
whence has this new mischief of theirs sprung
forth ? How have they even ventured to utter
this new blasphemy against the Saviour ? But
the impious man, it seems, is a worthless ob-
ject, and truly * reprobate concerning the
Faith 3.' For formerly, while denying the
Godhead of the only- begotten Son of God,
they pretended at any rate to acknowledge
His coming in the Flesh. But now, gradually
going from bad to worse, they have fallen from
this opinion of theirs, and become Godless on
all hands, so as neither to acknowledge Him
as God, nor to believe that He has become
man. For if they believed this they would not
have uttered such things as your piety has
reported against them.
2. You, however, beloved and most truly
longed-for, have done what befitted the tra-
dition of the Church and your piety toward
' Adelphius is named in the ' Tome '(above, p. 486), as bishop of
Onuphis. Previously he had been exiled by the Arians to the
Thebaid (above, pp. 297, &c.). Hence in the title of this letter he
is styled 'Confessor.' The letter (Migne xxvi. 1072) is directed
against the Arian Christology. Alihough Ath. treats it (§ i) as a
' 7ieiu blasphemy,' it had been held by the Arians from the first ;
Epiph. Anc. 33, traces it back to Lucian ; but doubtless it had by
this time been brought more to the front in their teaching. We know
that it occupied a prominent place in the Eunomian system. (Refer-
ences in Corner III. i.3.) Afterbrieflyrefuting the doctrinal error,
Athanasius tuins to the Arian charge of creature-worship brought
against the Nicene doctrine. Not forgetting to remind them that
their ovi'n doctrine was really open to this charge, Ath. points out
at greater length that the object of Catholic worship is not the
human nature of Christ as such, but the Word Incarnate ; and
that tiie human Saviour is worshipped because He is the Word
Himself. The date proposed by Montfaucon is adopted, though
there is nothing to fix it absolutely. Its style closely resembles
that of the writings of the ' third Exile.' (See also Bright, Later
Tr., p. 61.) "• 2 Cor. ii. 11. ' Rom. i. 30.
3 2 Tim. iii. 8.
the Lord, in refuting, admonishing, and re-
buking such men. But since, instigated by
their father the devil, ' they knew not nor un-
derstood,' as it is written, ' but go on still in
darkness *,' let them learn from your piety that
this error of theirs belongs to Valentinus and
Marcion, and to Manichaeus, of whom some
substituted [the idea of] Appearance for Reality,
while the others, dividing what is indivisible,
denied the truth that 'the Word was made
Flesh, and dwelt among uss.' Why then, as
they hold with those people, do they not also
take up the heritage of their names? For it is
reasonable, as they hold their error, to have
their names as well, and for the future to be
called Valentinians, Marcionists, and Mani-
chaeans. Perhaps even thus, being put to
shame by the ill savour of the names, they
may be enabled to perceive into what a depth
of impiety they have fallen. And it would be
within our rights not to answer them at all,
according to the apostolic advice ^ : 'A man
that is heretical, after a first and second ad-
monition refuse, knowing that such an one is
perverted, and sinneth, being self condemned ;'
the more so, in that the Prophet says about
such men : ' The fool shall utter foolishness,
and his heart shall imagine vain things 7.' But
since, like their leader, they too go about like
lions seeking whom among the simple they shall
devour^, we are compelled to write in reply to
your piety, that the brethren being once again
instructed by your admonition may still further
reprobate the vain teaching of those men.
3. We do not worship a creature. Far
be the thought. For such an error belongs to
heathens and Arians. But we worship the
Lord of Creation, Incarnate, the Word of God.
For if the flesh also is in itself a part of the
created world, yet it has become God's body.
And we neither divide the body, being such,
from the Word, and worship it by itself 9, nor
when we wish to worship the Word do we set
Him far apart from the Flesh, but knowing, as
we said above, that ' the Word was made flesh,'
werecogniseHimasGod also, after having come
in the flesh. Who, accordingly, is so senseless
as to say to the Lord : ' Leave the Body that
I may worship Thee,' or so impious as to join
the senseless Jews in saying, on account of the
Body, ' Why dost Thou, being a man, make
Thyself God '°?' But the leper was not one ot
this sort, for he worshipped God in the Body,
and recognised that He was God, saying,
' Lord, if Thou wilt Thou canst make me
clean '.' Neither by reason of the Flesh did
4 Ps. Ixxxii. s- 5 John i. 14. • Tit. iii. xo, xx.
7 Isa. xxxii. 6, LXX. « 1 Pet. v. 8.
9 As some modern devotions at least tend to do.
»o John X. 33. ' Matt. viii. 2.
576
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
he think the Word of God a creature : nor
because the Word was the maker of all creation
did he despise the Flesh which He had put on.
But he worshipped the Creator of the universe
as dwelling in a created temple, and was
cleansed. So also the woman with an issue of
blood, who believed, and only touched the
hem of His garment, was healed % and the sea
with its foaming waves heard the incarnate
Word, and ceased its storm 3, while the man
blind from birth was healed by the fleshly
spitting of the Word *. And, what is greater
and more startling (for perhaps this even
offended those most impious men), even when
the Lord was hanging upon the actual cross
(for it was His Body, a^id the Word was in it),
the sun was darkened and the earth shook, the
rocks were rent, and the vail of the temple
rent, and many bodies of the saints which
slept arose.
4. These things then happened, and no one
doubted, as the Arians now venture to doubt,
whether one is to believe the incarnate Word ;
but even from beholding the man, they recog-
nised that He was their maker, and when they
heard a human voice, they did not, because it
was human, say that the Word was a creature.
On the contrary, they trembled, and recognised
notliing less than that it was being uttered from
a holy Temple. How then can the impious fail
to fear lest 'as they refused to have God in
their knowledge, they may be given up to a
reprobate mind, to do those things which are
not fittings?' For Creation does not worship
a creature. Nor again did she on account of
His Flesh refuse to worship her Lord. But
she beheld her maker in the Body, and ' in
the Name of Jesus every knee' bowed, yea
and 'shall bow, of things in heaven and things
on earth and things under the earth, and every
tongue shall confess,' whether the Arians ap-
prove or no, ' that Jesus is Lord, to the Glory
of God the Father^.' For the Flesh did not
diminish the glory of the Word ; far be the
thought : on the contrary, it was glorified by
Him. Nor, because the Son that was in the form
of God took upon Him the form, of a servant 7
was He deprived of His Godhead. On the
contrary. He is thus become the Deliverer of
all flesh and of all creation. And if God sent
His Son brought forth from a woman, the fact
causes us no shame but contrariwise glory and
great grace. For He has become Man, that He
might deify us in Himself, and He has been
born of a woman, and begotten of a Virgin, in
order to transfer to Himself our erring genera-
tion^, and that we may become henceforth a
2 Matt, ix 20. 3 lb. viii. 26. 4 John ix. 6.
S Rom. i. 28 fi Phil. ii. 10, ii. 7 lb. w. 6, 7.
8 TrXaviiBelfrav yivvy\<riv<
holy race, and ' partakers of the Divine Nature,'
as blessed Peter wrote 9. And ' what the law
could not do in that it was weak through the
flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness
of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in
the flesh '.'
5. Seeing then that Flesh was taken by the
Word to deliver all men, raise all from the
dead, and make redemption for sins, must
not they appear ungrateful, and be worthy of
all hatred, who make light of the Flesh, as
well as those who on account of it charge the
Son of God with being a thing created or
made? For they as good as cry to God and
say : ' Send not Thine Only-begotten Son in
the Flesh, cause Him not to take flesh of
a virgin, lest He redeem us from death and
sin. We do not wish Him to come in the
body, lest He should undergo death on our
behalf: we do not desire the AVord to be
made flesh, lest in it He should become our
Mediator to gain access to thee, and we so
inhabit the heavenly mansions. Let the gates
of the heavens be shut lest Thy Word conse-
crate for us the road thither through the veil,
namely His Fleshy' These are their utter-
ances, vented with diabolical daring, by the
error they have devised. For they who do
not wish to worship the Word made flesh, are
ungrateful for His becoming man. And they
who divide the Word from the Flesh do not
hold that one redemption from sin has taken
place, or one destruction of death. But where
at all will these impious men find the Flesh
which the Saviour took, apart from Him, that
they should even venture to say ' we do not
worship the Lord with the Flesh, but we
separate the Body, and worship Him alone.'
Why, the blessed Stephen saw in the heavens
the Lord standing on [God's] right hands,
while the Angels said to the disciples, 'He
shall so come in like manner as ye beheld
Him going into heaven ^ : ' and the Lord Him-
self says, addressing the Father, ' I will that
where I am, they also may be with Me 5.' And
surely if the Flesh is inseparable from the
Word, does it not follow that these men must
either lay aside their error, and for the future
worship the Father in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, or, if they do not worship or
serve the Word Who came in the Flesh, be
cast out on all sides, and count no longer
as Christians but either as heathens, or among
the Jews.
6. Such then, as we have above described,
is the madness and daring of those men. But
our faith is right, and starts from the teaching
9 2 Pet. i. 4.
3 Acts vii. 55.
I Rom. viii. 3.
4 lb. i. II.
' Heb. X. so.
5 John xvii. 24.
LX. AD ADELPHIUM.
577
of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers,
being confirmed both by the New Testament
and the Old For the Prophets say : ' Send
out Thy Word and Thy Truth 6,' and ' Behold
the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and
they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is
being interpreted God with us?.' But what
does that mean, if not that God has come
in the Flesh ? While the Apostolic tradition
teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Foras-
much then as Christsufifered for us in the Flesh;'
and in what Paul writes, ' Looking for the
blessed hope and appearing of our great God
and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself
for us that He might redeem us from all
iniquity, and purify unto Himself a people
for His own possession, and zealous of good
works ^.' How then has He given Himself, if
He had not worn flesh ? For flesh He offered,
and gave Himself for U5, in order that under-
going death in it, ' He might bring to nought
him that had the power of death, that is, the
devils.' Hence also we always give thanks in
the name of Jesus Christ, and we do not set
at nought the grace which came to us through
Him. For the coming of the Saviour in the
flesh has been the ransom and salvation of all
creation. So then, beloved and most longed-
for, let what I have said put in mind those
who love the Lord, while as to those who
have imitated the behaviour of Judas, and
deserted the Lord to join Caiaphas, let them
by these things be taught better, if maybe they
are willing, if maybe they are ashamed. And let
them know that in worshipping the Lord in the
flesh we do not worship a creature, but, as we
said above, the Creator Who has put on the
created body.
7. But we should like your piety to ask
them this. When Israel was ordered to go
up to Jerusalem to worship at the temple
of the Lord, where was the ark, ' and above
it the Cherubim of glory overshadowing the
Mercy-seat',' did they do well or the opposite?
If they did ill, how came it that they who
despised this law were liable to punishment?
for it is written that if a man make light of it
and go not up, he shall perish from among the
people^. But if they did well, and in this
proved well-pleasing to God, are not the
Arians, abominable and most shameful of any
heresy, many times worthy of destruction, in
that while they approve the former People
for the honour paid by them to the Temple,
they will not worship the Lord Who is
in the flesh as in a temple? And yet the
former temple was constructed of stones and
gold, as a shadow. But when the reality came,
the type ceased from thenceforth, and there
did not remain, according to the Lord's utter-
ance, one stone upon another that was not
broken down 3. And they did not, when
they saw the temple of stones, suppose
that the Lord who spoke in the temple was
a creature ; nor did they set the Temple at
nought and retire far off to worship. But they
came to it according to the Law, and wor-
shipped the God who uttered His oracles from
the Temple. Since then this was so, how can
it be other than right to worship the Body of
the Lord, all-holy and all-reverend as it is,
announced as it was by the archangel Gabriel,
formed by the Holy Spirit, and made the
Vesture of the Word ? It was at any rate
a bodily hand that the Word stretched out to
raise her that was sick of a fever •♦ : a human
voice that He uttered to raise Lazarus from
the deads ; and, once again, stretching out
His hands upon the Cross, He overthrew the
prince of the power of the air, that now works ^
in the sons of disobedience, and made the
way clear for us into the heavens.
8. Therefore he that dishonours the Temple
dishonours the Lord in the Temple ; and he
that separates the Word from the Body sets at
nought the grace given to us in Him. And
let not the most impious Arian madmen sup-
pose that, since the Body is created, the Word
also is a creature, nor let them, because the
Word is not a creature, disparage His Body.
For their error is matter for wonder, in that
they at once confuse and disturb everything,
and devise pretexts only in order to number the
Creator among the creatures.
But let them listen. If the Word were a
creature, He would not assume the created
body to quicken it. For what help can crea-
tures derive from a creature that itself needs
salvation ? But since the Word being Creator
has Himself made the creatures, therefore
also at the consummation of the ages? He
put on the creature, that He as creator might
once more consecrate it, and be able to recover
it. But a creature could never be saved by a
creature, any more than the creatures were
created by a creature, if the Word was not
creator. Accordingly let them not lie against
the divine Scriptures nor give offence to simple
brethren ; but if they are willing let them
change their mind in their turn, and no longer
worship the creature instead of God, Who
made all things. But if they wish to abide by
their impieties, let them alone take their fill of
them, and let them gnash their teeth like their
6 Ps. xliii. 3. 7 Matt. i. 23, and Isa. vii. 14, 8 Tit. ii
13, 14. 9 Heb. ii. 14. « Heb. ix. 5. 2 Cf. Lev,
xvii. 9 ; Num. ix. 13.
VOL. IV. P P
3 Matt. xxiv. 3. ■» Mark i. 31. _ 5 Joh. xi. 43.
* Eph. ii. 2. Athan. here omits the to5 jn'tv/naTo?, thus in-
creasing the difficulty of the gen. particp. 7 Heb. ix. a6.
578
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
father the devil, because the Faith of the
Catholic Church knows that the Word of God
is creator and maker of all things ; and we
know that while 'in the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God V t^ow that
He has become also man for our salvation we
worship Him, not as though He had come in
the body equalising Himself with it, but as
Master, assuming the form of the servant, and
Maker and Creator coming in a creature in
order that, in it delivering all things, He might
bring the world nigh to the Father, and make
all things to be at peace, things in heaven and
things on the earth. For thus also we recognise
His Godhead, even the Father's, and worship
His Incarnate Presence, even if the Arian mad-
men burst themselves in sunder.
Greet all that love the Lord Jesus Christ.
We pray that you may be well, and remember
us to the Lord, beloved and truly most longed-
for. If need be this is to be read to Hiera-
cas ' the presbyter.
LETTER LXI.
Letter to Maximus.
(Written about 371 a.d.)
To our beloved and most truly longed-for
son, Maximus ', philosopher, Athanasius greet-
ing in the Lord.
Having read the letter now come from you,
I approve your piety : but, marvelling at the
rashness of those ' who understand neither
what they say nor whereof they confidently
affirm V I had really decided to say nothing.
For to reply upon matters which are so plain
and which are clearer than light, is simply
to give an excuse for shamelessness to such
lawless men. And this we have learned from
the Saviour. For when Pilate had washed his
hands, and acquiesced in the false accusation
of the Jews of that day, the Lord answered
him no more, but rather warned his wife in
a dream, so that He that was being judged
might be believed to be God not in word, but
in power. While after vouchsafing Caiaphas
no reply to his folly, He Himself by his promise'
brought all over to knowledge. Accordingly
for some time I delayed, and have reluctantly
8 John i. I. 9 Perhaps the ' Hierax ' of pp. 257, 297, 560, above.
^ Maximus, probably the Cynic philosopher who plays so strange
and grotesque a part in the history of S. Gregory Nazianzen's tenure of
the see of Constantinople (the identification is questioned by Bright,
p. 72, but without very cogent reasons), was the son of Alexandnan
parents, persons of high social standing, who had suffered much for
the Faith. He himself was an ardent opponent of Arianism and heathen-
ism, and was banished under Valens (further particulars in Diet. Gr.
and Rom. Biogr. s. v. Maximus Alexandrinus). The present letter com-
pliments him on his success in refuting heretics, some of whom advo-
cated the Arian Christology, others the doctrine of Paul of Samosata
and Photinus. The Epistle has much in common with those to
Epictetus and Adelphius ; Montfaucon's date for it is adopted. (See
Mgne xxvi. 1085 ; Bright, Lat. Tr., p. 72.)
2 I Tim. i. 7. 3 Mark xv. 5 ; Matt. xxvi. 64 ; xxvii. 19.
yielded to your zeal for the truth, in view of
the argumentativeness of men without shame.
And I have dictated nothing beyond what
your letter contains, in order that the adver-
sary may from henceforth be convinced on the
points to which he has objected, and may
' keep his tongue from evil and his lips that
they speak no guile '^.' And would that they
would no longer join the Jews who passed
by of old in reproaching Him that hung upon
the Tree : ' If thou be the Son of God save
Thyself \ ' But if even after this they will not
give in, yet do you remember the apostolic
injunction, and * a man that is heretical after
a first and second admonition refuse, knowing
that such an one is perverted and sinneth
being self-condemned ^' For if they are Gen-
tiles, or of the Judaisers, who are thus daring,
let them, as Jews, think the Cross of Christ
a stumbling-block, or as Gentiles, foolishness ^
But if they pretend to be Christians let them
learn that the crucified Christ is at once Lord
of Glory, and the Power of God and Wisdom
of God\'
2. But if they are in doubt whether He is
God at all, let them reverence Thomas, who
handled the Crucified and pronounced Him
Lord and God*. Or let them fear the Lord
Himself, who said, after washing the feet of
the disciples : ' Ye call Me Lord and Master',
and ye say well, for so I am.' But in the
same body in which He was when he washed
their feet, He also carried up our sins to the
Tree '. And He was witnessed to as Master
of Creation, in that the Sun withdrew his
beams and the earth trembled and the rocks
were rent, and the executioners recognised
that the Crucified was truly Son of God. For
the Body they beheld was not that of some
man, but of God, being in which, even when
being crucified. He raised the dead. Accord-
ingly it is no good venture of theirs to say that
the Word of God came into a certain holy
man ; for this was true of each of the prophets
and of the other saints, and on that assump-
tion He would clearly be born and die in the
case of each one of them. But this is not
so, far be the thought. But once for all ' at
the consummation of the ages ^ to put away
sin ' ' the Word was made flesh " and pro-
ceeded forth from Mary the Virgin, Man after
our likeness, as also He said to the Jews,
' Wherefore seek ye to kill Me, a man that
hath told you the truth ' ? ' And we are dei-
fied not by partaking of the body of some
3a Ps. xxxiv. 13. c ^ Matt, xxvii. 40 ; Luke xxviii. 37.
^Tit.'iii. 10,11. °iCor. i. 23. 7 Cf. i Cor. i. 24, and ii. 8.
9 Ath?q'uotes John xiii. 13 in this, the order of several MSS. and
later fathers, both here and elsewhere. i i pgt. ii. 24.
2 Heb. ix. 26. 3 John i. 14. '* lb. vui. 40.
I
LXI. LXII. AD MAXIMUM: AD JOANN. ET ANTIOCHEN. 579
man, but by receiving the Body of the Word
Himself.
3. And at this also I am much surprised,
how they have ventured to entertain such an
idea as that the Word became man in con-
sequence of His Nature. For if this were
so, the commemoration of Mary would be
superfluous.^ For neither does Nature know of
a Virgin bearing apart from a man. Whence
by the good pleasure of the Father, being
true God, and Word and Wisdom of the
Father by nature. He became man in the
body for our salvation, in order that having
somewhat to offer® for us He might save us all,
' as many as through fear of death were all
their life-time subject to bondage.' ' For it
was not some man that gave Himself up for
us ; since every man is under sentence of
death, according to what was said to all in
Adam, ' earth thou art and unto earth thou
shalt return.' ' Nor yet was it any other of
the creatures, since every creature is liable
to change. But the Word Himself offered
His own Body on our behalf that our faith
and hope might not be in man, but that we
might have our faith in God the Word Him-
self. Why, even now that He is become man
we behold His Glory, ' glory as of one only-
begotten of His Father — full of grace and
truth.' ' For what He endured by means of
the Body, He magnified as God. And while
He hungered in the flesh, as God He fed the
hungry. And if anyone is offended by reason
of the bodily conditions, let him believe by
reason of what God works. For humanly He
enquires where Lazarus is laid, but raises him
up divinely. Let none then laugh, calling
Him a child, and citing His age. His growth.
His eating, drinking and suffering, lest while
denying what is proper for the body, he deny
utterly also His sojourn among us. And just
as He has not become Man in consequence
of His nature, in like manner it was con-
sistent that when He had taken a body He
should exhibit what was proper to it, lest the
imaginary theory of Manichaeus should pre-
vail. Again it was consistent that when He
went about in the body, He should not hide
what belonged to the Godhead, lest he of
Samosata should find an excuse to call Him
man, as distinct in person from God the
Word.
4. Let then the unbelievers perceive this,
and learn that while as a Babe He lay in
a manger. He subjected the Magi and was
worshipped by them ; and while as a Child
He came down to Egypt, He brought to
nought the hand-made objects of its idolatry ':
and crucified in the flesh. He raised the dead
long since turned to corruption. And it has
been made plain to all that not for His own
sake but for ours He underwent all things,
that we by His sufferings might put on free-
dom from suffering and incorruption ', and
abide unto life eternal.
5. This then I have concisely dictated,
following, as I said above, the lines of your
own letter, without working out any point
any further but only mentioning what relates
to the Holy Cross, in order that the despisers
may be taught better upon the points where
they were offended, and may worship the
Crucified. But do you thoroughly persuade
the unbelievers ; perhaps somehow they may
come from ignorance to knowledge, and be-
lieve aright. And even though what your
own letter contains is sufficient, yet it is as
well to have added what I have for the sake of
reminder in view of contentious persons ; not
so much in order that being refuted in their
venturesonje statements they may be put to
shame, as that being reminded they may not
forget the truth. For let what was confessed
by the Fathers at Nic^a prevail. For it is
correct, and enough to overthrow every heresy
however impious, and especially that of the
Arians which speaks against the Word of God,
and as a logical consequence profanes His
Holy Spirit. Greet all who hold aright. All
that are with us greet you.
LETTER LXH.
To John and Antiochus}
Athanasius to John and Antiochus, our be-
loved sons and fellow-presbyters in the Lord,
greeting.
I was glad to receive your letter just now,
the more so as you wrote from Jerusalem. I
thank you for informing me about the brethren
that there assembled, and about those who
wish, on account of disputed points, to disturb
the simple. But about these things let the
Apostle charge them not to give heed to those
who contend about words, and seek nothing
else than to tell and hear some new thing \
But do you, having your foundation sure, even
5 Cf. Ai Epict. 5 (supr. p. 572.)
"> lb. ii. 15. 8 Gen. iii. 19, LXX.
6 Cf. Heb. viii. 3.
9 John i, 14 b.
I Cf. de Incarn. 36. 4. * Cf. I Cor. xv. ■».
1 Of John and Antiochus nothing is known, unless the latter is the
later bishop of Ptolemais and enemy of Chrysostom. Both men seena
to belong to the class of wellmeaninp mischief-makers, piven to retail-
ing invidious stories. Hence the polite resene of our little note (Migne
xxvi. 115, and its laconic dismissal of the gossip about Basil, the new
bishop of the Cappadocian Caesarea (sufr. p. 4491. The main interest
of this and the following letter, which seem to date from the winter
371 -372, consists in the testimony of the high esteem of Athanasiusfor
Basil, as well as his indifference to words where no essential principle
was involved. The two recipients of this letter either lived or were
visitors at Jerusalem. On Basil's difficulties at this time, see D.C.B. i.
288 a, 293, and on his relations with Athan., cf.Prolcgg. ch.ii. 4 10.
2 3 Tim. ii. 14; Acts xvii. 21.
P 2
580
LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS.
Jesus Christ our Lord, and the confession of
the fathers concerning the faith, avoid those
who wish to say anything more or less than
that, and rather aim at the profit of the
brethren, that they may fear God and keep
His commandments, in order that both by the
teaching of the fathers, and by the keeping of
the commandments, they may be able to ap-
pear well-pleasing to the Lord in the day of
judgment. But I have been utterly astonished
at the boldness of those who venture to speak
against our beloved Basil the bishop, a true
servant of God. For from such vain talk they
can be convicted of not loving even the con-
fession of the fathers.
Greet the brethren. They that are with me
greet you. I pray that ye may be well in the
Lord, beloved and much-desired sons.
LETTER LXIII.
Letter to the Presbyter Palladius *.
To our beloved son Palladius, presbyter,
Athanasius the Bishop greeting in tli£ Lord.
I was glad to receive also the letter written
by you alone, the more so that you breathe
orthodoxy in it, as is your wont. And having
learnt not for the first time, but long ago, the
reason of your staying at present with our
beloved Innocent', I am pleased with your
piety. Since then you are acting as you are,
write and let me know how are the brethren
there, and what the enemies of the truth think
about us. But whereas you have also told me
of the monks at Caesarea, and I have learned
from our beloved Dianius 3 that they are vexed,
and are opposing our beloved bishop Basil,
I am glad you have informed me, and I have
pointed out* to them what is fitting, namely
that as children they should obey their father,
and not oppose what he approves. For if he
were suspected as touching the truth, they
would do well to combat him. But if they are
confident, as we all are, that he is a glory to
the Church, contending rather on behalf of the
truth and teaching those who require it, it is
not right to combat such an one, but rather to
accept with thanks his good conscience. For
' On the general subject and date of this letter see note i to
Letter 62. Of Palladius, who is clearly a resident at Caesarea,
nothing further is known. The tone of this letter is more con-
fiding than that of the previous one. (Migne ib. 1167.)
2 Perhaps a bishop in the neighbourhood of Csesarea. See
D.C. B. s.v. Innocentius (4).
3 Namesake of a predecessor of Basil, otherwise unknown.
4 The letter here referred to is lost. The monks in question
had raised a cry against Basil on account of the reserve with
which he spoke of the Divine Personality of the Holy Spirit.
(See j«/r. p. 481.)
from what the beloved Dianius has related,
they appear to be vexed without cause. For
he, as I am confident, to the weak becomes
weak to gain the weak s. But let our beloved
friends look at the scope of his truth, and at
his special purpose ^, and glorify the Lord Who
has given such a bishop to Cappadocia as any
district must pray to have. And do you, be-
loved, be good enough to point out to them
the duty of obeying, as I write. For this is at
once calculated to render them well disposed
toward their father, and will preserve peace to
the churches. I pray that you may be well in
the Lord, beloved son.
LETTER LXIV.
To Diodorus (fragment).
To my lord, son, and most beloved fellow-
minister Diodorus [bishop of Tyre^ ^, Athana-
sius greeting in the Lord.
I thank my Lord, Who is everywhere estab-
lishing His doctrine, and chiefly so by means
of His own sons, such as actual fact shews you
to be. For before your Reverence wrote, we
knew how great grace has been brought to pass
in Tyre by means of your perseverance. And
we rejoice wjth you that by your means Tyre
also has learned the right word of piety. And
I indeed took an opportunity of writing to you,
longed-for and beloved : but I marvel at your
not having replied to my letter. Be not then
slow to write at once, knowing that you give
me refreshment, as a son to his father, and
make me exceeding glad, as a herald of truth.
And enter upon no controversy with the
heretics, but overcome their argumentativeness
with silence, their ill-will with courtesy. For
thus your speech shall be 'with grace, seasoned
with salt %' while they [will be judged] by the
conscience of all. . . .
5 I Cor. ix. 22. * oiKovOiu.tai'.
' This fragment (Migne xxvi. 1261) is given by Facundus, Def.
Tr. Cap. iv. 2, who claims it as addressed to Diodorus of Tarsus,
the famous Antiochene confessor and master of Chrysostom and
Theodore. Unfortunately this is impossible, as Diodore became
bishop of Tarsus not before 378, i.e. after Athan. was dead. The
letter itself decides for Diodorus o/'Tj'r^, whom Paulinus of Antioch
had quite unwarrantably ordained to this see (cf. Rufin, H.E. ii.
21). Whether (as has been held on the authority of Rufinus)
Diodorus, or (as Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 865 sq. holds) Zeno, the
nominee of Meletius, was first in the field in the unseemly scramble,
is doubtful. Zeno is already bishop in 365 (Soz. vi. 12) ; the date
of the appointment of Diodorus, whose claim is at any rate no
better than that of Paulinus himself, is quite uncertain (see also
Prolegg. ch. ii. §§ 9, 10). Diodorus was the friend and corres-
pondent of Epiphanius, and of Timothy, bishop of Alexandria,
second from Athanasius. Facundus confuses him in these par-
ticulars also with his namesake of Tarsus, but the mistake is
tlioroughly sifted by Tillemont, Mem. viii. pp. 238, 712. The
letter is important, along with Letter 56, and the correspondence
of S. Basil, as illustrating the attitude of Athanasius with regard
to the unhappy schism of Antioch. » Col. iv. 6.
EXCLUDED LETTERS. 581
MEMORANDUM
On other Letters ascribed to Athanasius.
The above Collection of Letters is complete upon the principle stated in the Introduction
{supr., p. 495). But one or two fragments have been excluded which may be specified here.
(i.) Fragment of a letter * to Eupsychius;' probably the Nicene Father referred to
Ep. /Eg. 8, (cf. D.C.B. ii. 299 (4) ). The Greek is given by Montf in Ath. 0pp. i. p. 1293
(Latin, ib. p. 1287). It was cited in Cone. Nic. II. Act vi., but although it has affinities
with Orat. ii. 8 (' high-priestly dress '), it has the appearance of a polemical argument against
Monophysitism. (Migne xxvi. 1245.)
(2.) 'To Epiphanius' (Migne xxvi. 1257). Against certain, who contentiously follow the
Jews in celebrating Easter. (From * Chron. Pasch. pag. 4 postremse editionis.')
(3.) Fragments of an 'Epistola ad Antiochenos' (not our ' Tomus,' supr.., p. 483): also
a polemic against Monophysitism, and almost Nestorian in doctrine : ' Jesus Christus . . . non
est Ipse' [i.e. ante saecula et in saecula, Heb. xiii. 8], and again 'duas personas' asserted of
Christ. From Facundus, who says the letter was written against the ApoUinarians, and who
gives it on the authority of Peter, Ath.'s successor (Migne xxvi. 1259).
(4.) *Ad Eusebium, Lucinianum, etsocios.* (In Migne xxvi. 1325 sq., from Mai, Script.
Vet. II. 583 sq.) A minute fragment. Cf. supr.., Letter 55, notes i, 7.
(5.) Spurious letters (in Migne xxviii.) to Jovian, to Castor (2), to a 'bishop of the Per-
sians,' and to and from popes Liberius, Marcus, JuUus and Felix (made up out of late and
spurious decretals, &c., &c.).
INDICES.
I.
INDEX OF SCRIPTURES CITED.
N.B. — The classification and order of the books follows strictly that of Athanasius himself (jw/r. p. 552;.
The chapters and verses are those of the English versions of the Bible.
The thick figures refer to passages where a text is specially explained, or where some point of text or
exegesis requires attention.
PAGE
PAGE
PAGE
A. Old Testament
Gen. xlviii. 5
• • • 350
Num. xxiv. 5-17 . . 54
I Sam. xxi. 13
. . 258
Books.
xlviii. 15 i
7. . . 400
xxviii. 2 . . . 518
xxii. 2. .
. . 258
xlix. 3 .
. 374, 382
Deut. iv. 4, 7 . . 435
xxii. 9. .
> . 246
PAGE
xlix. 10
• • • 57
iv. 19 . . . . 28
xxii. 18 .
. . 295
Gen. i. i 37, 158, 379, 469
xlix. 14 s^
'• . . 540
iv. 24 . . . . 514
xxvi. 9
. . 281
1. 3 88, 365, 410, 427
ExoD. iii. 2-6
. . 401
iv. 32 . . . . 373
xxvi. ID Jf .
. . 261
i. 6. . .
. . 410
iii. 10 .
. .261?
vi. 4 . . . .
xxvi. 21 .
. . lOI
i. 9 .
• 365, 427
iii. 13 .
. . . 365
28, 397, 469, 476, 533
2 Sam. XV. 13 ,
. 397
i. II .
.
. . 88
iii. 14 .
• .
vi. 7 . . • • 535
xviii. 24 . ,
. 205
i. 6-11
. . 29
397,4
33, 469, 490
vi. 13 . . . . 28
I Kings i. ii .
. 397
i. 14-18
• • 363
iii. 14 s^.
. . . 16S
vi. 16 , . . . 264
L 19, 26 . .
. 350
i. 26 . 22
, 29, 365.
iii. 16 .
. . 478
vii. 8 . . . . 444
viii. 27 . .
. 337
380
s^., 410,
iv. 12 sg^.
. . 423
ix. 3 . . . . 514
viii. 59
. . 394?
427,
463, 465
iv. 13 .
• . 365
xii. 11-14 . . 508
X. 24 . . .
. 394?
1. 28 . .
• • 557
viii. 26
. . 536
xiii. 1-3 .. . 541
xiii. 2 . .
. 261
i. 31 .
. • 389
xii. 2 .
. • . 543
xiii. 4 .... 435
xviii. 15 . ,
198, 258
ii. 3 .
. • 379
xii. 5 .
. . . 546
xiii. 18 ... 154
xxi. ID . ,
. 246
H-5^ .
. . 313
xii. 7 .
. . . 51S
xiv. I .... 154
xxi. 18 . .
. 261
11. 16 .
. . 38
xii. 8, 9
. . . 548
xvi. I . 509, 519, 545
xxi. 20 . .
• 295
ii. 17 .
. • 39
xii. II .
. . . 520
xvii. 6 . . . . 100
2 Kings i. 10 . .
. 262
iii. 9 .
. . 421
xii. 23,
• ; 515
xviii. 15 . . 338, 543
V. 8, 15 . .
• 395
iii. 12 .
. • 559
xii. 41 .
. 163, 491
xxi. 15 . . .339?
V. 26 . . .
. 205
iii. 19 .
•385,579
xii. 43 .
. . 522
xxi. 23 . . . 49
vi. 13-17. .
. 530
iv. I .
• 350
xii. 43-48
• . 542
xxviii. 66 . . .
vi. 16 . . ,
. 284
iv. 9 .
. 421
xii. 46 .
. . 548
55, 356, cf 529
vi, 18 . . .
. 205
iv. 12 .
241, 272
xiv. 14
• • 535
XXX. 14 . . . 20
xvii, 9 . ,
. 235
iv, 16 .
• 529
xiv. 21
• • 550
xxxii. 4 . . . 351
xix, 35 . .
. 204
V. 3 . .
. 164
XV.
• • 542
xxxii. 6 . . .
XX, 6 . . .
. 260
V. 24 . ,
. 421
XV. I . .
•515,516
168, 380, 442
XX, 18. . .
• 350
vi. 2 .
. . 442
XV. 9 .
. 202, 263
xxxii. 8 ... 313
Chron. . . .
• 552
vii. I .
. . 419
xix. 8 .
. . 542
xxxii. 17, 18. . 380
Ezra iii. 6 . . .
. 245
ix. 27 . .
• 438
xix. 9 .
• • 529
xxxii. 20 . . . 353
Nehem. viiL . .
. 245
XV. I ,
. 423
xix. 16
. • 507
xxxii. 39 . . .
Psalms i. i .
535, 569
XV. 8 .
• 36s
XX. 3, 4
. . 28
327, 353, 397
i. I, 2 . .
• 517
xix. 24 3
55,
465. 476
XX 13 .
. . . 252
xxxii. 49 . . . 261
ii. I . .
xix. 26
. 201
xxi. 13
• . • 259
Josh. i. 6 . . . . 423
150, 312,
529, 534
xxi. 5 . ,
• 339
xxi. 17
. 457, 489
v. 13 . . . . 208
ii. 4 . .
• 537
xxii. 2,
• 443
xxiii. I
. . 246
vii. 20 sff. . . 228
ii. 6 . .
• 377
xxii. 13
• 522
xxiii. 14
. . 506
X. 12 . . . . 550
ii. 7 • .
XXV. 8.
. 260
xxiii. 26
. . 260
xxiii. 14 . . . 220
158, 360,
379, 442
xxvi, 13
. 422
xxiv. 2
. . 514
xxiv. 23 . . . 201
iv. I . .
• 532
xxvi. 24
• 423
xxix. 5
• . 352
JUDG. xi. 34 . . . 477
iv. 5 • .
• 546
xxvii. 2
. 260
xxxiii. 20
. . 360
xiii. 16 . . . 361
V. 3 • •
• 523
xxvii. 29
• 357
Lev. ix. 7 . .
. . 445
xix. 29, &c. . . 92
v. 5 . .
• 337
xxvii. 37
. . 357
xi. 13 .
. . 524
Ruth 552
vii. 3. 4 •
• 543
xxviii. 3, ^
. . 401
xvii. 9.
• • 577
I Sam. ii. 6 . . . 260
ix. nae .
• 442
xxviii. 15
. . 401
xxiii. 26, :
!7, 29. 508
ii. 27 . . . . 442
ix. 6 . .
. 207
xxxi. 2
. . 242
xxvi. 12 .
. . 483
V. 6 .... 291
ix. 9 . .
342, 355
xxxi. 5
. 214
Num. ix. 2 .
• • 513
xii. 5 • • • 239, 240
ix. 14 . .
• 521
xxxi. 7
. 401
ix. 13 . .
. . 577
xiii. 9 .... 283
ix. 15 . .
• 535
xxxii. II
. 401
X. I, 2.
. . 507
XV. 10 sgg. . . 228
ix. 17 . . .
• 524
xxxii. 26
. 409
x. 8 . .
. of. 506
XV. 22. . . . 546?
xi. 7 . .
• 337
xxxii. 30
. 400
X. 9 .
. . 507
xvi. 12 . . . 214
xii. 6 . .
• 514
xxxii. 31
403, 478
X. 10 .
. . 506
xvi. 14 . . . 407
xiv. I . .
xlii. 21
. 242
xxiv. 5, 6
. . 208
xvii. 42 . . . 214
49'. 536,
547, 561
586
I. INDEX OF TEXTS.
PAGE
PAGE
PAGE
PAGB
Psalms xiv. 2. . . 536
Psalms xlv. 8 .
. . 334
Psalms ci. 6 . . . 529
Prov. iv. 1-3
• • • 510
xiv. 7 . . . . 506
xlvi. 7 . ,
. 163, 491
cii. 18 .... 373
iv. 23 .
• . . 201
XVI. 3 • • • • 507
xlix. 3. .
. . 535
cii. 23, 24 . . 260
V. 3,4
. . . 525
xvi, 8 .... 341
xlix. 10 .
. . 547
cii. 25 . . . 379, 387
v. 22 .
• • • 534
xvi. 10 . . 356, 425
xlix. II ,
. . 540
cii. 26-28 . . . 327
vii. 22.
. . . 296
xvii. 3 .... 540
xlix. 12 .
. . 87
civ. 4 . . . 469, 514
vii. 22, 2;
• • 470
xvii. 15 . . . 525
xlix. 20 .
. . 404
CIV. 24 . . .
viii. 2 .
• • . 549
xviii. 1,2 . . 401
1. I . . .
. . 476
161, 317, 339. 351,
viii. 9 .
. . . 181
xviii. 9, 13 . , 328
1. 3 • • •
. . 262
365, 369, 373. 387,
viii. 10, I
I • . 338
xviii. 29 . . .
1. 14 . .
. . 546
390, 434
viii. 12
. .317.472
40s, 515. 547
1. 16 . .
civ. 25, 26 . . 547
viii. 14
. , 428, 429
xvui. 44, 45 . , 545
203, 224,
471, 524
civ. 34 . . . 546
viii. 22
• 84,85,
xviii. 45 . . . 529
1.23 . .
• . 546
cvii. 20 . . 58, 365
158, I
59, 168, 180,
xix. I . 18, 359, 391
li. 10 . .
. . 558
c'f- I • 355, 356, 465
232,3
37. 348, 350,
xix. 4 . 180, 516, 537
li. II . .
• • 334
ex. 3 . 70, 158, 164,
^
J57-385, 464
xix. 14 . . 535, 549
li. 12 . .
• 373, 558
168, 442, 444, 458
viii. 23
, . . 388
XX. 7 . . . 206, 329
li. 13 . .
• . 558
cxi. 2 . . . . 426
viii, 23-2;
. • 314
xxii. 9. ... 444
liii. I . .
. . 232
cxii. I . . . . 569
viii. 24-26
> . , 392
xxii. 16 . . . 55
liv. I . ,
. . 329
cxv. 3 . 364, 426, 429
viii, 25 <
35, 158, 168,
xxii. 22 . . . 180
liv. 7 . .
. . 262
cxv. 4 . . . . 570
3
65. 379. 442
xxiii. 4 . . . 509
Iv, 15 . ,
. of. 547
cxv. 5 . . , . II
vui. 27
• • •
xxiv. 3 . . . 522
Ivi. 1 1 . .
. . 262
cxv. 5-7 .. . 28
.. 29, 3
77. 392, 417
xxiv. 7 , . .
Ivii, 3 . .
. . 262
cxv. 8. . .511
vui. 30
• * •
50, 88, 330, 409, 476
Ivii. 4 . .
■ 365. 534
cxv. 16 . . . 553
85.1
82, 318, 328,
xxiv. 10 . . 309, 361
Ix. 12 . .
. . 405
cxv. 17, 18 . . 524
. 359.3
77, 378, 392
XXV. 15 . . . 549
Ixiii. I, 2 .
525, 549
cxv. 18 . . . 491
viii. 31
• • . 393
xxvi. 2 . . . 540
Ixiii. 6
. . 535
cxvi. 12, 13 . . 518
ix. I .
• • •
xxvii. I . . . 265
Ixiii. II .
. . 88
cxvi. 15 . .518, 524
. 372, 3
73. 375. 446
xxvii. 3 . , . 198
Ixvi. II, 12
. . 532
cxvi. 16 . . . 350
IX. 1-5
. . . 525
XXX. 9 . , . 520
Ixviii. I .
. . 199
cxviii. 6 . . . 423
ix. 17 . ,
. 525. 549
xxxi. 3 ... 342
Ixix. 26 .
. . 258
cxviii. 7 . , . 197
ix. 18. .
• 3". 525
xxxi. 7, 8 . . 265
Ixxi. 3 .
. . 355
cxviii. 10 . . . 199
X. 3 .
. . . 525
xxxi. 15 . . . 260
Ixxii. I
cxviii. 17 . . . 525
x. 20 .
. . . 235
xxxi. 24 . , . 263
Ixxii. 5, 17
. • 330
cxviii. 24 . . . 538
X. 27 .
, . . 260
xxxii. 7 ... 542
Ixxiii. 20 .
. . 510
cxviii. 27 . . 58, 476
xi. 26 .
...513
xxxii. 9 . .404, 510
Ixxiii. 23, 24
. 429
cxix. I ... 383
xii. 5, 6
, . 227, 426
xxxiii. I . . . 521
Ixxiv. 2 .
• . 379
cxix. 20, 43, 44 . 549
xii. 7 .
. . . 184
xxxiii. 4 ... 387
Ixxiv. 6 .
. . 281
cxix. 62 . . . 542
xii. lo
, . . 292
xxxiii. 6 . . . 28,
Ixxiv. II .
• • 443
cxi^f- 73 155, 379, 444
xii. II
. . . 531
.230. 365, 429. 442
Ixxiv. 14 .
. . 508
cxix. 89 . . 368, 382
xii. 20
. . . 163
xxxiii. 9 . . .
Ixxvi. I .
. . 516
cxix. 90, 91 . . 28
xiii. 3 . ,
. . . 261
{See cxiviii. 5)
Ixxvii. 10.
• • 444
cxix. 91 . . 392, 435
xiii. 13
. . . 522
xxxiv. I . , . 514
Ixxviii. 25
. 526
cxix. loi . . . 369
xiv, 15
. . . 225
xxxiv. 13. . . 578
Ixxx. 7
• 531
cxix. 143, 148 . 535
xiv. 16
. . . 391
xxxiv. 21 . . . 524
Ixxxi. 3 . .
506, 513
cxix. 164 . . . 542
XV. I .
. . . 253
xxxv. 8 ... 535
Ixxxii. I .
. • 329
cxx. I, 2 . . . 401
XV. 13 .
. 214, 242
XXXV. 9 ... 521
Ixxxii. 5 .
. . 575
cxx. 5 ... 532
XV. 19
. . 513
xxxv. 16 . . . 210
Ixxxii. 6 . ,
• 3"
cxxiv. 6 . . . 531
XV. 28 .
• 227, 524
xxxv. 28 . . . 512
Ixxxii. 6, 7 ,
. 38
cxxv. I 210, 534, 535
xvi. 13 J
S42, 248, 253
xxxvi. 9 . . .
Ixxxiii. I . ,
. 492
cxxvii. I . . . 446
xviii, I
.151.314
158,313,365.426,491
Ixxxiii. 6 . ,
. . 515
cxxxii. 14 . 483, 569
xviii, 3 .
8, 71, 393
xxxvu. 15 . . 534
Ixxxiv. 7 . ,
. 476
cxxxii. 15 . . 525
xix. 5
. loi, 139
xxxvii. 40 . . 263
Ixxxi V. 10 ,
. 338
cxxxiii. I . . . 483
xix. 27 ,
. . 534
xxxviii. 12 . . 534
Ixxxv. 8 . ,
• 394
cxxxv. 6 , . 426, 429
XX. 13 . ,
. . 246
xxxviii. 14 . 203, 206
Ixxxvi. 8 .
cxxxvi. I . . . 263
XX. 17. ,
. . 525
xxxix. 2 . . . 203
339.
399. 492
cxxxvii. I . . 516
XX. 23. .
. . 350
xl. 1 .... 263
Ixxxvi. 16
• 375
cxxxvi. 5 . . . 569
XX. 28. .
. . 242
xl. 6 . , . . 522
Ixxxvii. 2 .
■ • 337
cxxxviii. 8 . . 88
xxi. I . .
. . 567
xli. 9 . . , . 514
Ixxxviii. 7 .
. 88
cxxxix. 6 . . . 563
xxi. 26 .
. . 549
xlii. I . . . . 525
Ixxxix. 6 . .
cxli. 2. . . . 546
xxii. 28 .
. . 489
xlii. 4 . . .510, 522
339,
375, 399
cxliii. 5 . . 387, 535
xxiii. I .
. . 472
xliii. 3 . . 531, 577
Ixxxix. 17, 1 8
» • 330
cxlv. 13 . . 313, 355
xxiii. 5 .
. . 406
xliii. 4 . . . 529
XC. 2 . . ,
. 314
cxlv. 14 . . . 351
xxiii. 32 .
. . 299
xliv. 5 ... 405
xc. 10 . , ,
. 200
cxlvi. 8 ... 431
xxiv. 3 .
. • 391
xliv. 17 . .515,537
XC. 14 . . ,
• 537
cxlvii. 7-9 . . 28
xxiv. 9 ,
. . 547
xliv. 20 . . . 301
xc. 17 . . ,
• 313
cxiviii. 5 . . .
xxiv, 15 ,
. . 210
xliv. 22 . . . 523
xciii. I . .
. 442
28, 156, 365, 444
XXV, 2 ,
. • 563
xlv. Tii/e. .442, ^,^4
xciv. II , ,
. 228
cl. 6 . . . . 522
xxv. 5 .
. . 242
xlv. 1 . 70, 164, 174,
xciv, 17 . .
. 518
Proverbs i. 5 . . 547
XXV. 7 .
. 139, 240
185, 262, 379,
xcv. I . . .
521, 537
i. 5, 6 . . . . 390
xxv. 18 .
. . 242
426, 430, 442
xcvii. I . .
. 516
i. 7 .... 392
xxv, 25 .
. • 549
xlv. 6, 7 . . .
c. 3 . . .
15s. 376
i. 23 . . . . 369
xxvi, 10 .
. . 547
333. 335, 355
0.4...
• 529
iii. 19 161, 317, 375,
xxviii, 28
. • 297
xlv. 7 .... 328
ci. 5 . . ,
240, 246
388, 429
xxix. 7
. . 407
I. INDEX OF TEXTS
PAGE
Proverbs xxix. 12 . 296
XXX. 8 ... 246
XXX. II . . . 457
XXX. 15 . . 256, 294
ECCLES. iii. 2 . . 260
iv. 8 . . . cf. 200
V. 8, 9 ... 263
vi. 2 . . . cf. 200
vii. 10 . . , 391
vii. 17 ... 260
vii. 23, 24, 26 . 563
vii. 29 ... 7, 38
. viii. I . . . . 391
ix. 12 . . . . 260
X. 8 .... 535
X. 20 . . . . 239
xii. 14 . . . 351
Canticle v. 2 . . 281
viii. I . . . . 506
Job i., ii. . . . . 204
i. 2 ... 339, 350
i. 21 , . . . 540
ii. 7 .... 529
V. 23 . . . . 210
V. 26 . . . . 260
vi. I .... 539
xiv. 4, 5 . . . 519
xviii. S . . 232, 312
xxxviii. 17 423, 424,
454, 467, cf. 88
xl. 8, 9 ... 539
Isaiah i. 9, 10
i. II .
i. 12 ,
L 13 .
i. 14 .
i. 22 .
157, 232
ii. 3 •
ii. 4 .
iii. 9, 10
V. I .
V. 7 .
V. II .
V. 20 .
vL 8 .
vi. 9 .
vii. 14 . 54,
xl. 16 .
xli. I sq.
xli. 5 .
xli. 13
xli.l8j^f., 2T sqq. 202
DODECAPROPHETON.
Hosea i. i .
iv. 12 . .
vi. 3 . .
vi. 6 . .
vii. 13, IS
viii. 7 . .
ix. 4 . .
xi. I . .
Joel i. 7 . .
ii. 15 . .
ii. 17 . . . 300, 565
ii. 25 . . 163, 309,
460, 471. 491
ii. 28 . 410, 462, 573
. Amos V. 16. . . 476
Micah iv. 2. . cf. 570
vii. . . . 385, 475
Nahum i. 15 . .
509.513, 519
ii. I . . . . 509
Habakkuk ii. 5 . 487
. 197
. 202
. 224
224, 306
452
197
549
546
310
490
545
54
243
507
11. 15
Zechariah i
ii. 10 .
viii. 19
Malachi i. 2, 3
i. II
ii. 10 .
iii. 3 .
iii. 6 .
iv. 2 .
Isaiah i. i
i. 2 156, 328;
i. 4
i. 6
203, 485
549. 570
3. 12 . 365
• 337
• 543
• 337
517.537
. 380
cf. 540
70, 327.
353, 572
506, 519
• 452
441. 529
. 561
. 300
252
viu. 4 .
ix. 5 .
ix. 6 .
X. 14 .
xi. I, 5
xi. 8 .
xi. 9 .
xi. 10
xiv. 12
xiv. 14
xiv. 27
xix. I .
xxii. 13
xxii. 14
xxiii. 2
xxv. 8
xxvi. 9
XX vi. 10
xxvi. 13
xxvi. 20
xxxii. 6 .
xxxv. 3, 4
xxxviii. 18
xxxviii. 19
xxxviii. 20
xxxix. 7
xl. 8 .
xl. 18 .
xl. 28
xlii. 2
xlii. 8
xlii. 12
xliv. 6
xliv. 9 sqq
xliv. 23
xliv. 24
xiv. 5 .
xiv. 14
xlvii. 6
xlviii. 13
xlviii. 22
xlix. 5
xlix. 8
xlix. 13
1. 6 .
Ii. 16 .
Hi. 5 .
Iii. II .
liii. 3 .
liii. 3 sqq
liii. 4 .
liii. 5 .
liii. 7 .
338, 356,
?84
yAGE
• 255
363, 545
545 > 546
• 545
520. 545
392. 413
522, 570
, . 64
535. 546
. 442
. 184
. 549
263, 270
. 87
• 5"
338, 543,
572, 577
54,55
. 259
89, 400,
415, 428
202, 224
. 515
. 224
61, 341
• 55
• 399
224, 403
233, 563
• 54
512, 524
• 524
. 510
• 356
. 549
. 524
• 355
262, 288
244, 575
• 56
• 524
• 350
• 528
. 350
. 334
• 5"
313, 361
. 205
. 477
. 520
397, 465
II
. 522
15s. 398
. 476
. 361
. 258
. 161
511,513
155, 376
. 506
• 522
530, 572
. 161
. 451
233. 301
• 374
• 54
548
522
411
509, 522
155:
2
15s
58
587
PAGE
84, 466
213.341
• 533
Isaiah liiL 8
liv, 13
Iv. 6, 7
Ivi. 4 sq.
Iviii. 5
Iviii. 9
Iviii. II
lix. 3-5, 9-1
Ixi. I .
Ixi. 8 .
Ixiii. X
Ixiii. 9
Ixiv. 4
Ixv. I, 2
Ixvi. 2
Ixvi. 3
Jeremiah i
i-5 .
iu I .
ii. 12 .
ii. 13 .
ii. 18 .
iii. 3 .
iv. 3 .
v. 8 .
v. 30 .
vi. 16 •
vi. 20 .
vii. 18, 21, 22
vii. 22, 23
vii. 28
vii. 34
ix. 2 .
ix. 3 .
ix. 10 .
xi. 19 .
xiii. 23
xiv. 10
XV. 5 .
XV. 18
xvii. 10
xvii. II
xvii. 12, I
XX. 9 .
XX. 12
xxii. 10
xxiii. 18,
xxiii. 23
xxiii. 29
xxv. 10, sq.
xxxi. 22
xlviii. 10
Baruch iii. 12
158.
iii. 35 .
iii. 37 .
iv. 20, 22
Lamentations iv. 6
Epistle of Jeremiah,
(Baruch vi.) 552
. 224
. 287
22
• 339
. 508
• 343
• 317
• 534
334, 336
• 337
. 88
• 58
. 510
• 56
387,444
• 545
• 452
314.4"
. 365
287, 300
317, 499
• 525
• 393
• 513
404, 510
. 287
. 542
545
545
546
• 513
513. 545
143, 536
353
490
55
172
226
558
3, 549
539
281
317
514, 559
539
102
490
435
369
521
85, 373
5H
35
31
,371
375
cf. 337
313
EZEKIEL ix. 4
xi. 13 . .
xvi. 25
xvi. 48 .
xviii. 23 .
xviii. 26 .
xviii. 32 .
xxviii. 2 .
xxxiv. 2 .
Daniel
Susanna 42 .
51-59
204
Daniel
Song of 3 Children
25-28 ... 528
2,ssq. . . . 387
iii. 25 . . . . 442
iv. 3 . . . . 476
iv. 19 . , . . 217
vi. II . . . cf. 245
vi. 13 . . . . 95
vii. 14 . . . 476
vii. 25 . . . 298
ix. 24 sq. . . 57
ix. 27 . . . . 299
Bel and Dragon 5 . 410
B. New Testament
Books.
Matthew i. 17 . . 441
i' 23 . 54, 338,410,
574. 577
ii. 13 . , . . 259
ilL 3 . . . . 201
iii. 7 . . . . 510
iii. 9 . . . . 177
iiL 17 . 157, 174, 312,
315, 360, 382,
426, 443, 469,
574 (cf. xvii. 5)
230, 288
. 264
to6, 224, 529
• 476
. 560
. 196
. 151
• 525
383. 524
. 262
• 537
• 232
. 535
. 260
404, 492
244
. 471
cf. 530
. 514
. 201
. 514
. 406
248, 558
313.314
. 208
IV. 3
iv. 7
iv. 10
iv. II .
iv. 19 .
iv. 20 .
iv. 23 .
V. 6 .
V. 8 .
V. 10 .
V. II, 12
V. 15 .
V. 22, 28
V. 36 .
V. 48 .
vi. 6 .
vi. 7 .
vi. 9 •
vi. 25-30
vi. 30 .
vi. 31 .
vi. 34 .
vii. 2 .
vii. 6 .
vii. 13.
vii. IS
vii. 22
vii. 25 .
viii. 2 .
viii. 26
viii. 29
viii. 31
ix. 3 .
ix. 5 •
ix. 13.
ix. 20.
ix. 24 .
ix. 36 .
X. 8 .
X. 16 .
Z. 22 .
X. 23 .
X. 29 .
z. 40 . .
95
. 468
. 171
. 362
. 87
. 208
. 196
. 218
. 106
. 529
224, 549
. 206
446, 534
• 575
. 576
224, 230
. 204
. 293
415, 476
. 546
211, 576
• 569
. 130
. 218
. 404
121, 122
251. 259
. .87,258,
260, 362
. 89, 390,
391, 439. 5"
588
I. INDEX OF TEXTS.
PAGE
PAGE
PAGE
PAGB
Matthew xi. 13
• 57
Matt. xxv. 23, 26 . 513
Luke vii. 48 . . . 415
348, 369. 372, 374,
xi. 25 . .
• 7. 375
XXV. 26 — 28 , . 558
ix. 61 . .
. . 559
377, 382, 392, 409.
xi. 27 . 87,
158,231,
XXV. 26—30 . . 521
ix. 62 . .
. . 201
410,417,434,435,
313,
329. 360,
XXV. 34 . 156, 389,
X. 18 . .
. 50, 207
445, 465, 474, 475,
407
sq-, 413.
522, 529, 553
X. 18, 19 .
. . 415
573, 575, 578, 579
418
439, 442
XXV. 35, 40 . . 292
X. 19 . .
.204, 516
JoHNi. 16. 180,336,471
xi. 28 . .
. 88,342
xxv. 45 . . . 274
X. 20 . .
. . 206
1. 17 . . 180, 341
xi. 29 . .
.405, 511
xxvi. 2 . . . 548
X. 22 . .
. .
i. 18 26, 70, 158, 164,
xii. 14, 15
• • 259
xxvi. 17 . . 516, 517
87, 90,
415. 419
382, 439, 440, 442,
lii. 19
. . 205
xxvi. 26 . . . 447
xi. 2 . .
. . 326
443, 457, 459. 461
xii. 24 .
. . 151
xxvi. 26—28 . 517
xi. 13 . .
. . 528
i. 2© .... 542
xii. 28 .
. • 335
xxvi. 28 . . . 516
xi. 15 . ,
. . 477
1. 45 • . • . 224
xii. 30 .
. . 306
xxvi. 38 . . . 521
xi. 27 . ,
. . 572
11. 4 . . . 259, 416
xii. 32 .
• . 336
xxvi. 39 . 408, 412,
xii. 4 . ,
. . 423
11. 19 . . . . 446
xii. 34 .
• 320, 547
423, 424
xii. 20 ,
, . 260
ii 25 . . , . 414
xii. 36 .
. . 119
xxvi. 41 . . . 408
xii. 29
. . 208
iii. 2 .... 558
xii. 40
. . 406
xxvi. 45 . . . 259
xii. 33 •
. . 292
iii- 3, 5 • . . 43
xii. 43-45
. . 513
xxvi. 64 . . 66, 578
xii. 40
421, 509
111. 16-19. • . 440
xiii. 8 . .
. . 529
xxvi. 65 . . . 520
xii. 49 .
. . 5H
iii. 17 . 223, 341, 378
xiii. 21 .
. . 514
xxvii. 19 . . . 578
xiii. 16
. . 415
ui. 31 . . . . 492
xiii. 22 .
. . 534
xxvii. 24 . . . 295
xiii. 25
. . 524
iii. 35 ... .
xiii. 23 .
. . 529
xxvii. 40 . . . 578
xiii. 32 .
. . 404
88, 407, 413, 430
xiii. 52 .
. . 535
xxvii. 45 . . . 550
xiv. 15 .
. . 526
111. 36 . . 407, 441
xiii. 55 •
. • 336
xxvii. 46 . . 408, 424
XV. 7 . .
. . 522
iv. 14 . . . . 538
XIV. 13 .
. • 259
xxvii. 52 sq. . . 424,
XV. 17. .
. . 526
IV. 24 . . . . 182
xiv. 28 .
, . 212
cf. 88, 579
XV. 32 . ,
. . 548
iv. 26 . . . . 550
XV. 3 . .
. . 512
xxvii. 54 177, 422, 424
xvi. 8 . .
. . 232
iv. 34 . . . . 508
XV. 4 . .
. . 255
xxviii. 5 . . . 205
xvi. 9 . .
. . 220
v. 16 . . . . 355
XV. II
. . 557
xxviii. 18 407,413,435
xvi. 19 sqq.
. • 530
V. 17 . , . 87, 232,
XV. 13
468, 489
xxviii. 19 . 74, 93, 341,
xvii. 2
. 452
359, 363, 441
XV. 19
. . 547
446, 461, 466
xvii. 15 — 19
. 520
V. 18 . . . . 355
XV. 26, 28
. . 526
xxviii. 20 . . 542
xvii. 21 .
20, 201
V. 19 . 29, 476, 492
xvi. 13 .
408,414
Mark i. 24 . . . 224
xviii. 2 . .
. 285
V. 20 . . . . 430
xvi. 16 .
357, 382,
i. 31 •
. . . 577
xviii. 7 . ,
. 541
V. 22 . . . 88, 407
388, 42
2, cf. 283
ii. II .
. . . 476
xviii. 12 . .
• 507
V. 23 . . . .
xvi. 16, 17
. 551
iv. 17 .
. . • 547
xviii. 19 . .
• 397
84, 326, 397, 476
xvi. 18 .
. 446
iv. 20
.514,557
xix. 10 . .
43,44
V. 25 ... . 89
xvi. 23 . .
386, 424
iv. 37—41
■ 547, 550
xix. 23
cf. 558
V. 26 . . . 89, 413
xvi. 24 . .
281, 295
V. 7 .
. . . 53
xxi. 8 . . .
71, 223
V. 30 . . . . 413
xvii. 5
230, 231,
vi. 38 .
. 408, 414
xxii. 15 .
. 542
V. 37 . . . . 403
365. 574 (c
;f. iii. 17)
viii. 22 sq
7' • . 485
xxii. 15, 16 .
. 520
V. 39 . 224, 409, 552
xvii. 20 . .
. 2l8
X. 21 .
. . 298
xxii. 28-30 .
. 552
V. 46 . . .224,545
xviii. 6 HI,
451, 558
X. 28 .
. . 542
xxii. 29, 30 .
. 526
VI. 4 . . . . 520
xviii. 19 .
. 244
X. 45 .
. . . 342
xxii. 31 . .
cf. 523
vi. 6 . . . . 414
xviii. 20 . .
104, 528
xii. 25
. . 386
xxiii. 28 . .
• ^^l
vi. 30 . . . . 150
xviii. 24 sqq.
• 513
xii. 29
. 7, 397
xxiii. 37 . .
0 578
vi. 35 . . . . 527
xix. 4 . 37
. 373, 379
xiii. 9
. . . 280
xxiii. 43 . .
84, 518
VI. 37 . . . . 408
xix. 6 . .
. 261
xiii. 32
408,416^7^.
xxiv. I . .
. 334
VI. 38 . . . 397, 461
xix. 21 . .
. 196
xiii. 35
. . 66
xxiv. 5 . .
• 515
vi. 38-40 ... 377
xix. 27 . .
• 563
XV. 5 .
. . 578
xxiv. II . .
. 48
vi. 42 . , . . 408
XX. 22, 23 .
. 518
XV, 34
. 423, 435
xxiv. 13-32 .
. 514
vi. 44 . . . 180, 447
XX. 28 . .
• 385
XV. 46
. . 572
xxiv. 39 . .
446, 573
vi. 45 . . . . 213
XX. 32 . .
. 414
Luke i. i .
. . 550
xxiv. 42, 43 .
. 446
vi. 46 . 164, 231, 360
xxi. 19, 33 J?
?.. 521
i. 1—4 .
. . 512
John i. i . 25, 26, 70, 88,
vi. 48-51. . . 525
xxii. 12 .
526. 549
i. 2 . .
. . 365
176, 186, 230, 231,
vi. 51 . . . . 530
xxii. 14 . .
. 526
i. 13 . .
. . 205
312, 321, 330, 365,
vi. 53 . . . . 508
xxii. 21 .
286, 337
i. 19 . .
• . 401
367, 377, 379, 395.
vi. 63 . . . . 369
xxii. 29 .
227, 337.
i. 27 . .
. . 572
426, 433, 443, 445,
vi. 67 . . . . 295
5".
546, 552
i- 35 . .
. . 446
461, 476, 533, 578
vi. 68 . . . 263, 527
xxiii. 27 . .
• 549
i. 41 . .
. . 206
i. 1-3 . . . 161, 409
vii. 6, 30 . . . 259
xxiv. 2 . .
. 577
ii. I . .
. . 452
i. 3 . . .26, 37, 70,
vii. 37 507, 517, 526,
xxiv. 3 . .
• 338-
ii. 23 . ,
. . 572
87, 88, 158, 176,
„ 543, 548, 553
xxiv. 15 . .
• 259.
ii. 52 . .
. 408, 421
230, 231, 314, 317,
vii. 38 526, 549, 553
xxiv. 24 . .
. 225.
. iii. 7 . .
. . 510
339, 351, 361, 367,
vn. 46. . . . 543
xxiv. 24, 25 .
. 223
iv. 3 . ,
. . 230
369, 376, 387, 392,
viii. 12 377, 395, 476
xxiv. 31 . ,
• 476-
iv. 8 . ,
. . 415
393, 476, 491
viii. 35 • . . 388
xxiv. 39 . .
• 419
iv. 18 . .
. . 334
L 8 .... 440
viii. 36 . . 385, 388
xxiv. 42 . .
418, 421
iv. 30 .
, . . 260
1-9 ....
viii. 40 . .177, 578
xxiv. 44 . .
66, 418
- iv. 34 . .
. • 53
. 331, 440, 476, 541
viii. 42 164, 228, 447
XXV. I 12 .
• 527
iv. 41 • .
. . 203
1. 12 . 154, 331, 404
viii. 44 . 203, 225,
XXV. II . .
. 524
V. 24 . ,
• • 395
1. 12, 13 . . . 380
255, 258, 403
XXV. 13 . .
• 419
vi. I sqq.
• . 25s
L 14 . 88, 159, 179,
viii. 56 . . 206, 522
XXV. 21 . .
.
vi. 36 . 399. 404, 492 1
186, 228, 232,-321,
viii. 58 259, 314, 377,
510,
537, 552
vi. 49 . .
• • 5471
330, 332,
341. 343, '
408,441,485
I. INDEX OF TEXTS.
589
PAGE
PAGE
PAGE
PAGE
John viii. 59 . . . 259
John xiv. 11. . 414, 435
Acts xiii. 22 . . . 178
Romans i. 26. . 17,39
ch. ix. . .
. 293. 485
xiv. 16 . . 454, 465
xiv. 15 . . . 22
i. 28 . sii, 540, 576
ix. 6 . .
• 576
xiv. 17 . . . 454
xvii. 21 . . . 579
1. 30 . 468, 571, 575
ix. 28 . .
• 546
xiv. 23 . .371,400
xvii. 27 . . . 40
u. 5 . . . . 451
ix. 32, 33
• 57
xiv. 26 . . 445, 454
xvii. 28 . . 59, 90,
ii. 13 . . . • 184
IX. 39 • • .
. 378
xiv. 27 . . . 117
163, 471, 556
ii. 16 . . . . 211
X. 9 . . .
. 381
xiv. 28 340, 397, 466
xvn. 30, 31 . . 178
ii. 21 . . . . 510
X. 14 . . ,
• 313
xiv. 28, 29 . . 314
xvii. 31 . . . 446
ii. 23 . . . . 507
X. 15 . .
71, 231
XV. I . . . . 180
xxiii. 9 .
. . lOI
li. 24 . . .249,451
X. 16 . . .
• 485
XV. 20
. . 185
xxiii. II
. . 261
in. 29, 30 . . 466
X. 17, 18.
• . 48
XV. 22. ,
. • 439
xxiv. 18,
19 • • 143
iii. 31. ... 543
X. 18 . .
84, 413.
XV. 26.
. 334, 462
XXV. 16
• • 143
iv. 20 . . . . 300
423, 424, 435
xvi. 7 . .
• • 334
xxvi. 26
. . 48
V. 3 . . . 540, 541
X. 29 . . . . 466
xvi. 13
. 336, 467
James i. 2 .
. • 541
V. 3 sqq. ... 514
X. 30 . 70, 160, 164,
xvi. 14
.
i. 8 ,
. . 152
V. 4, 5 . . . 262
168, 171, 176, 186,
334. 336, 454
i. 12 .
• 23s. 541
V. 12 . , . . 538
230, 308, 316, 326
xvi. 15 88, 341, 3S7.
i. 15 .
. . 201
V. 14 . . . 38, 87,
note, 366, 377, 395,
361, 395, 413,
i. 17 • .
. • 493
341,411, 518
396, 399, 403, 423.
418, 476, 492
i. 18 .
. . . 427
VI. 9 . . . . 531
431, 434, 435, 436,
xvi. 23 . . . 218
i. 20 . ,
. . 201
VI. 14 . . . cl. 531
440, 442, 447, 474,
xvi. 25 . . . 372
i. 21 .
. . 355
vii. 12, 14 . . 473
476, 491, 492, 493
xvi. 28 84, 441, 458
ii. 7 .
. . 300
viii. 3. 341.473.576
X. 32—38 . . 439
xvi. 33 . .541, 543
r, ''• ^3. •
• . 515
viii. 3, 4 - - •
X. 33 . . 151,408,
xvii. I . . 260,417
I Peter 1. 7 .
. cf. 540
197. 336, 378
446, 477, 575
xvii. 3 342, 392, 398
i. 12 .
. . 90
viii. 9 - • • 336, 341
X- 35 • • • 329, 492
xvii. 5 328, 408, 415
i. 13 .
. . 515
viii. 13 . . . 527
X. 36 . . . . 356
xvii. 7 sqq. . 435, 436
i. 25 .
. . 489
viii. 15 ... 234
X. 37 . . . 46, 411
xvii. 10 . . .
ii. 21-23
. . 5"
viii. 17 . . . 540
X- 38 . . 355.396,
.336, 395. 413. 476
ii. 22 .
• . . 45
viii. 18 . . 200, 540
411,423, 431
xvii. II . . . 403
ii. 23 .
• • 530
viii. 19 . . . 383
xi. 14 . . . . 414
xvii. 17 . , . 404
ii. 24 .
• -374,578
viii. 21 . . 252, 383
xi. 25 . .
. . 446
xvii. 18, 19 . . 333
iii. 19.
• • 572
viii. 22 . . . 373
xi. 34 . 408,
414, 485
xvii. 20-23 • • 403
iii. 22 .
. . 416
viii. 24, 25 . . 532
xi. 35 • .
. . 423
xvii. 21 , . . 371
iv. I . 4
10, 412, 485
viii. 26 . . . 355
xi. 43 . .
• • 577
xvii. 22 . . . 335
iv. 9 .
• • 353
viii. 28 . . . 201
xi. 47 . .
. . 150
xvii. 24 . . . 576
V. 8 .
viii. 29 . 381, 382,
xi. 50. .
, . 369
xviii. ^sq. . . 260
273, 276, 294, 575
383, 389, 485
xi. 53. 54
. . 259
xviii. 5 . . 385, 423
2 Peter i. 4. . 215,316,
viii. 32 . . . 200
xii. 13
• 550
xviii. 12 . . . 151
576, cf. 519,572
viii. 33, 34 ■ 233, 563
xii. 27 408,
423. 424
xviii! 23 . . . 572
i. 17 . . . . 416
viii. 35 163, 198, 207,
xii. 28 408,
423, 520
xviii. 37 . . . 377
ii. 22 . . . cf.279
233, 262, 270,
xii. 32. .
. . 50
xix. 15 281, 310,371
(and passim)
407, 528, 534
xii. 34 .
. • 356
xix. 38 . . . 558
iii. 16. . . . 557
viii. 36 . . . 262
xii. 36 .
• 440
xix. 39 . • • 334
I John i. i, 2 . . 443
viii. 37 531, 539. 558
xii. 45 .
. 439, 440
XX. 17. . .463,466
ii. 7 • . . . 153
viii. 38 J^. . . 530
xii. 46
377. 440
XX. 22 . 334, 336, 509
ii. 14 . . . . 543
ix. 3 - • • • 543
xii. 46-48
• • 439
XX. 27. . . . 447
ii. 20 . . . . 334
ix. 5 . . . . 311,
xii. 47 .
. . 440
XX. 28. 361, 574,578
ii. 23 . . . 390, 392
312, 321, 433, 574
xiii. 12-14
. . 511
Acts i. i .... 223
iii. 2 .... 479
ix. 19 . . . 361, 364
xiii. 13 313,
361, 578
i. 7 . . . . 420
iii. 5 . . . . 412
ix. 20 . . . . 323
xiii. 18 .
• . 514
L II .... 576
iii. 8 . .s77sq.,3S6
ix. 32 . . . . 409
xiii. 20 .
. . 397
i. 18 . 233, 291, 565
iii. 24 . . . . 331
ix. 33 . . . . 491
xiii. 21
. . 408
u. 22 . 178, 354, 446
iv. I . 206, 224, 225
x. 4 .... 543
xiv. 2 . .
• 529
ii. 24 . . . . 332
iv. 9 . . . . 382
X. 18 . . . . 180
xiv. 6 . 85, 158, 242,
ii. 36 .
iv. 13 . . . . 406
xi. 23 . . . . 521
245. 313, 317.318,
337, :
)48, 354-357
iv. 15. . . . 407
xi. 29 . . . . 407
327. 359. 377. 381,
iii. 15.
. . . 179
V. 20 . . . 84, 230,
xi. 32 . . . cf. 348
398, 472, 516
iii. 20.
. . cf. 446
398, 404, 443
xi. 33- • • • 563
xiv. 8 j^. . . . 313
iv. 5 .
. . 405
2 John 10. . . 71, 564
xi. 34. - .323.417
xiv. 9. . . 28, 70,
iv. 10. ,
. . 178
3 John and JUDE . 552
xi. 36. . . . 458
84, 85, 89, 158,
iv. 32. ,
. . 405
Romans i. i, 2 . . 377
xii. II. . . . 558
171, 186, 230, 311,
ix. 35. .
. . 196
i. 2
. . . 224
xii. 12. . . . 535
318, 326 note, 342,
V. 29 . .
. . 424
i. 3 •
• -571.574
xii. 15. . . . 96
360, 377, 392, 393,
vii- 55
• • 576
i. 7, &c.
- -371.401
xiii. 7- - .521,528
396, 403, 447, 470,
viii. 4 .
. . . 281
i. 12 .
. - . 539
xiii. 14 ... 516
474, 476, 492, 493
viii. 20
. 199, 429
i. 15 .
- - • 559
xiv. I . . . 526, 529
xiv. 9-13 ... 440
viii. 27 ,
. . 283
i. 19 sqq.
- - 391. 392
xiv. 2 . . . . 528
xiv. 10 . . 29, 70,
viii. 30 .
. . 546
i. 20 . 22, 313, 368,
XV. 19. . . 262, 559
164, 168, 171, 176,
viii. 34
. . . 338
375. 459, 476
XV. 28. . . . 559
180, 230, 325 note,
ix. 4 .
. . . 391
i. 21 . . . . 38
xvi. 18 . . . 536
342, 360, 366, 377,
ix. 5 .
. . . 284
L 22 . . . 38,511
xvi. 24 (&c.). . 421
378, 393, 396, 399,
X. 26 .
. . . 360
i. 23 . . . . 320
I Corinthians i. i
403. 423. 430, 434.
X. 36 .
. . . 445
i. 25 , . . 8, 29,
(&c.) ... 427
437. 531
X. 38 .
. . 334, 446
2
25. 230. 356
i. 4 .... 401
590
I. INDEX OF TEXTS.
PAGE
PAGE
PAGE
PAGB
I Corinthians i. 5 . 567
I Cor. xiv. 9
. • 433
Gal. iv. 8. . . . 355
168, 329, 373, 383,
i. 7, 8 . . . . 445
xiv. 25
. .331,511
iv. 10. . .513, 520
426, 461, 466, 542
i. 10 . . . 405, 479
xiv. 33
. . . 117
iv. 19 , . . . 300
COLOSSIANS i. 16 . 26, 29,
i. 21 . 356,391,392
XT. 3 . .
. . 573
V. 13 . . . . 234
85, 176, 364.
i. 23 . 413,468,578
XV. 9 .
. . . 559
V. 15 . . . . 325
373. 375. 376,
i. 24 . . 159, 186,
XV. ID.
. . . 197
V. 22 . . . . 521
382, 383, 491
231, 312, 325, 365,
XV. 20.
. . . 383
V. 25 . . . . 523
i. 17 . 26, 87, 313,
368, 371, 382, 410,
XV. 21.
. . 41, 378
vi. 2 . . , . 2n
373, 383. 387, 491
420, 421, 428, 445,
XV. 22
. . 41. 341
vi. 15 . . . . 386
i. 18 . 26,381, 383
459, 468, 506, 578
XV. 31
. . . 201
Ephesians i. 3 . . 544
i. 20 . . . . 88
i. 30 . . . 85, 89,
XV. 32
. . . 300
i- 3-5 . . . . 389
ii. 3 • . • • 231
186, 330, 468
XV. 33
. . . 471
i- 5 .... 427
ii. 5 • . . . 5"
ii. 4 . . .217,394
XV. 47
• • • 332
i. 10 . . . . 88
ii. 9 . 231, 410, 471
ii. 7 . . . . 65
XV. 53
• . 47, 520,
i. 13 . . . . 334
ii. 14 . . . . 88
u. 8 . . .158,337,
538,
572, cf. 579
i. 14 . . . c£ 543
ii. 15 . . 50, 61, 205
394, 415. 535,
XV. 55
47, 5^ 522
i. 20 . . . . 435
iii. 4 . . . cf. 526
546, 574, 578
xvi. 22, 2
3 • . 564
ii. 2 . . . 50, 577
iii. 5 . 523, 524, 525
ii. 9 . 67, 129, 510
2 Cor. i. 10
. . . 401
ii. 4, 5 . . . 528
iv. 6 . . . . 580
ii. 10 . . . . 84
i. 21 .
. . . 44
ii. 10 . . . . 378
1 Thess. ii. 19 . . 559
ii. 16 .
. . . 471
i. 23 .
. . . 239
ii. 12 . . . . 213
iii. II. . . . 400
iii. I .
. . . 526
ii. II .
, 202, 224,
ii. 13 • . . • 548
iv. 13 . . . . 338
iii. 2 .
. . . 528
336, 575
ii. 14 . . . 49, 378
V. 16 . . . 537, 547
iii. 10, II
. . 388
ii. 15 .
. . . 556
ii- 15 . • • 373. 378
V, 17 . 196,512, 515,
iii. 12.
. . . 540
ii. 16 .
. . . 518
ii. 15 s^^. . . 88
537, 547. 549
iii. 16 .
. .316,333
ii. 17 .
, . . 126
ii. 19 . . . . 532
V. 18 . 427,429. 512,
iv, I .
. . . 93
iii. 2 .
. . 566, 567
iii. 15 320, 462, 464
515,537.547
iv. 4 .
. .532,561
iii. 14.
. . cf. 545
iii. 18 ... . 45
V. 19 . . . . 514
iv. 5 .
. . . 211
iii. 16, 17
. . 312
iv. 3 . . . . 528
V. 24 . , . . 353
iv. 6 ,
. .207,405
iii. 17.
. . 509
iv. 4 . . . . 69
2 Thess. ii. i sgg. .
iv. 16 .
. . . 510
iv. 10. .
• 523. 527
iv. 5 . . • 479. 483
338, 421
iv. 20 .
. . cf.578
iv. 1 1 . ,
. 163, 491
iv. 10. • ... 332
ii. 3, 8 . . . 299
V. 3 .
. . . 126
iv. 13. ,
• • 523
iv. 13 . . . . 406
iii. 10 . . . . 196
v. 4 .
. . . 93
iv. 14. ,
. . 524
iv. 14 . . . . 300
Hebrews .... 552
v. 7 .
. . . 507.
iv. 1 7 . ,
. • 540
iv. 20-24 . . , 446
i. I ... 161, 338
512, 513, 520, 524,
V. 4 . .
. . 446
iv. 22 . . . . 373
i. 2 . . 161, 217,
528, 531, 538, 541,
V. 10 .
. . 66
iv. 22-24. . . 509
313, 338, 413
542, 543. 544, 552
V. 13-15 •
. . 520
iv. 24 ... 511
i. 3 . 70, 80, 158,
V. 8 ... .
V. 14 . ,
. 41,386
iv. 26 ... 211
JI79, 230, 313, 321,
507. 509, 515, 520
V. 17, 18
162, 491
iv. 30 . ... 118
335- 338, 365, 426,
v. 13 . . . . no
V. 19 . .
• . 396
V. I, 2 . . . 399
429.?^., 490, cf. 553
vi. 10 . .
. . 255
V. 21 . .
• • 374
V. 14 . . . 419, 524
i. 4 . . . .
vi. 13 .
. . . 524
vi. I, 2 ,
• • 520
V. 27 . . . . 385
180, 337, 338, 348.
vi. 17 .
. . . 534
vL 2 .
. . 506
vi. II . . . . 197
i. 6 . . . 330, 342,
vi. 20 .
. . 520
vi. 11-13
. . 438
vi. 12 . 201, 210, 507
361, 383, 476
vii. 5 . .
. . 278
vi. 14 . .
214, 524
vi. 13 . . . . 213
L 7 .... 340
vii. 7 . ,
. . 532
vi. 14, 15
. 70, 126
vi. 15. . .515, 542
i. 10 . . . 327, 340
vii. 17.
. . 118
vi. 16. .
. 316, 483
Philippians i. 13 . 281
i. 14 . . . . 401
vii. 27.
. . 104
vi. 17 . .
. . 536
i. 29 . . . . 539
ii. 1-3 ... 340
viii. 6 .
. • 155,
vii. I . .
• . 552
ii. 5-1 1 . . . 329
ii. 7 • • • • 376
161, 162, 163, 176,
vii. 6 . .
. . 512
ii. 6 .179, 180, 330,
ii. 9 . . . . 41
317, 365, 395, 415,
X. 15 . .
. . 104
377, 396, 409,
ii. 10 . . . 70, 231
467, 469, 476, 491
xi. 3 . .
• 224, 550
426, 476, 576
ii. 12 . . . . 180
viii. 8. . . . 557
xi. 27 . ,
. . 560
ii. 7 . . 180, 331,
ii. 14 . 512,541, 579
viii, 9. ,
. . 387
xi. 33 • «
• • 252
348, 377, 409,
ii. 14, 15. . .
ix. 16 .
. • 559
xii. 2 . ,
. . 419
474. 485, 576
41, 47, 353, 378
ix. 22 .
. . 580
xii. 3 . .
. . 213
ii. 8 . . . 377. 409
ii. 15 . . . 159, 579
ix. 24-27
. cf. 543
xii. 4 . .
262, 532
ii. 9 . . . .
ii. 16 . . . 353, 572
ix. 27 .
. .197,54^
xii. 9 . .
• • 540
224, 328, 435, 436
ii. 17, 18. . . 353
X. 4 . .
• . 534
xii. 10 .
198, 540
ii. 10 . . .328, 576
iii. I, 2 . 180, 337,
X. 13 . ,
• . 351
xii. 21 ,
• . 533
ii. II . 330, 460, 576
348, 350, 353
X. 23 . .
. . 6
xiii. 5. .
. . 211
iii. 13. . . .
iii. 5 • • • • 353
xi. I . .
, ,
Gal. i. 8 . ,
153, 224
201, 421, 422, 519
iii. 6 . . 353, 446
399, 5". 530. 533
i. 9 .1
26, 224, 512
iii. 14 . . . 16, 198,
iv. 12 . . 53, 84,
xi. 2 . 457,492. 5"
i. 16 .
. 514, 559
541, 553, 560
367. 387, 534
xi. 3 . . . . 463
ii. 5 •
. cf. 256
iii. 15 . . . .532
iv. 13 . . . 367, 387
XI. 7 , 163,364,491
ii. 6, 13 .
. . 567
iii. 20 . 553, cf. 524
iv. 14 . . . . 536
xi. 9 . . . . 364
ii. 20 . .
518, 524
iii. 21. ... 331
V. 13 . . . . 526
xi. 12 . .
• • 459
iii. 11. .
• • 473
iv. 5 . . . . 509
V. 14 . . . 529, 547
xi. 25 . .
. . 107
iii. 13. .
♦9, 374, 573
iv. 6 . . . . 515
vi. 18. . . . 546
xi. 27 . .
. . 519
iii. 19. .
• • 39
iv. 12 . . . . 560
vi. 20. . .330,553
xi. 34 • .
. . 118
iii. 23, 24
• . 545
iv. 13 . . . . 531
vii. 19. , . 341, 473
xii. 4 . .
• . 443
iii. 28 . .
. . 386
COLOSSIANS i. 12 . 539
vii. 22. , . , 341
xii. 26
. . 96
iv. 4 • 3<
?5, 410, 574
i. 12-17 ... 161
viii. 3 • • • • 579
xiii, 9, 12
. • 532
iv. 6 . I'
j2, 380, 441
i. 15 . . . 26, 85,
viii. 6 . . . , 341
I. INDEX OF TEXTS.
591
Hebrews ix. 5
. . 577
ix. 10 . .
• 507. 546
ix. 12. .
. • 553
ix. 13 . .
. . 542
ix. 23 . .
• • 341
ix. 24 . .
• • 330
ix. 26 . .
84. 543.
574, 577. 578
ix. 27 . .
• • 565
X. I . .
• . 546
z. 20 . .
• 50.576
X. 24 . .
• • 539
X. 29 . .
• . 526
xi. 3 . .
. 37. 161
xi. 6 . .
• 526, 533
xi. 16 . .
. • 525
xi. 17. .
• • 522
xi. 32 . .
. . 234
xi. 37 sj. .
• . 260
xii. I . .
. . 262
xii. 18-23
. • 553
xii. 23 . .
. . 522
xii. 24. .
• • 509
xii. 29 . .
• • 514
xiii. 4 . .
• • 557
xiii. 8 . . .
70, 327,
334,
353. 572
xui. 14 .
■ 553
I Timothy i. 4
• 294
- i. 7 . .
324, 393,
451.
470, 578
i. 8 . .
• 473
i. 10 . . .
. 116
L IS (&c). .
351.512
i. 17 . . .
. 476
i- 19 • • 7.
234, 511
L 20 . . .
• 338
I Timothy i. 7 . .
471. 510, 533
cf. 524
270, 271
• 153
li. 9 .
iii. 2 .
iii. 8 .
iv. 1 .
iv. 2 .
iv.4 .
iv. 6 .
iv. 7 .
iv. 8 .
iv. 12 .
iv. 14 .
iv. 15 .
V. 16 .
V. 23 .
vi. 5 •
vi. 10 .
vi. 15 .
2 TiMOTHV
i. 10 .
i. 13 •
ii. 8 .
ii. 13 .
ii. 14 .
ii. 16 .
ii. 17 .
71,
ii. 18 .
ii. 19 .
iii. 8 .
iii. I I .
iii. 12.
iii. 13 .
iii. 14 .
iii. 17 .
233
535
2*48,
."cf.
i.'8-
512;
234. 3"
• 3"
• 373
508, 526
536, 540
535. 536
• 5"
513. 559
533 ^^^
• 351
• 560
104, 470
367. &c.
• 41
10 . 389
252, 341
. 526
519. 533
• 353
• 579
. 536
226, 338, 536
.338, 511.536
• • • 536
... 575
. . 262, 401
233, 262, 536
... 541
• • 533- 536
... 535
2 Timothy iv. 6
. . 261
iv. 7,8 .
• 235. 559
Titus 1.6. .
. . 249
i. 12 . .
. . 471
i. 14 . .
.233.311
i. 15 . .
. 556
ii. 8 . .
. 213
ii. 13, 14.
. 577
iii. 8 (&c.) .
351, 512
iii. 10, II
575,578
Philemon .
■ 552
Revelation i. 4
. 312
i. 5 . .
. 381
i. 8. . .
395- 476
iii. 14. . .
. 517
iv. 8 . . .
90
viii. 9 . . .
. ^7^
xviii. 6 . .
. 234
xxii. 9 . .
. 360
xxii. 13-17 .
. 444
C. Non-Canonical
Books.
Wisdom of Solomon
i. 4, 5 • • • 514
i. II . . . loi, 240
ii. 12 . . 546, cf. 535
ii. 21 . . . . 296
ii. 23 . . .
• 38
iii. 5. 7 • .
. 262
vi. 18 . . .
■ 38
vi. 24 . . .
• 391
vii. 25 157 (note 8),
167 (note 3), 179, 182
vii. 27. . .506,528
ix. 2 . . . . 373
xiii. 5. . .
28, 366
PAGB
Wisdom of Solomon
XIV. 12 ,
9
XIV. 12 S^f. .
10
XIV. 21 . .
. 13
Ecclesiasticus
1. 9, lo. .
. 391
1. 25 . . .
. 204
iv. 28 . . .
. 147
vii. 5 . . .
. 238,
289, cf. 243
XV. 9 . .
224, 524
xviii. 17 , ,
. 546
XXX. 4 . .
. 134
Esther iii. 9, .
cf. 531
iii. i6 . . .
. 516
IX. 21 . . .
cf. 531
Judith ix.-xv.
cf.si6
ToBiT iv. i8 . .
• 244
xii. 7 . . .
. io6
Teaching of the
XII. Apostles
> . 552
Shepherd of Her-
mas, Mand. i. .
,
37, 162,
491, 533
Mand. ix. 9.
• 153
D. Apocryphal Books.
3 ESDRAS iv. 36 .
. 359
IV. 40 . .
. 186
IV. 41 . . .
. 242
4 EsDRAS vii. 28,
29 446
* * TAe Prayer of Ma nasses
and the books of the MaC'
cabees are not cited by
Athanasius.
II.
GENERAL INDEX.
N.B. An asterisk * denotes a bishop present at Sardica (see p. 147). A cross f denotes a bishop who signed
the letter circulated by the Council (p. 127). In the latter case the name of his country is given
in italics.
The identification of persons bearing the same name has nowhere been taken for granted without an
attempt to weigh the evidence. Probably in a few cases names separated in the Index for lack
of identifying evidence may yet in reality belong to one and the same person.
'A7€V>jTos, 324 sqq., 339 ; discussed,
1695^^. ; not a Scriptural word,
171 ; not an adequate name for
God, 326 ; different meanings of,
475 ; 'K-/iii7iTos and ayivvr)Tos,
475, note 5.
'Ay4vvT)Tos, not to be said of the Holy
Spirit, 465, note.
Atwv, 161, note 5.
"AXoyos, God never, 159 (see Lo^os).
'A\oy(a (Arian), 150.
^KuBpaiTos KvpiaK6s, 83 sqq.
airapaWaKTos, 163.
' k.ic6ppoia, 84.
'Airoppori, 157 (note 8).
"ApTot, 94, 257, 293, note, 556.
Abd-el-Kurna, inscription at, 564.
Ablavius, Consul, 503, 512 ; Praef.
Orientis, praised, 517.
Abundantius t, Gaui, 127.
Abuterius, 240.
Acacius, bishop of Csesarea, liv., 119,
123, 125, 126, 152, 226, 275,
4Si> 455, 456, 470, 471, 481,
555» 556, 567 (note 7) ; pupil
of Eusebius, 456 ; Acacian party
few in number, 226.
Accident (avfi^iBriKos), 164, note 9.
Achillas, bishop of Alexandria, 131,
235> 299.
Achillas, presbyter of Mareotis, 72,
134-
Achilles, 13.
Achilles, Meletian bishop, 137,
Achilleus, Arian presbyter, 70.
Achitas, deacon, 128.
Acyndinus, consul, 503.
Adam, 5 ; created in grace, 154; all
men created in, 375 ; men lost
in, 381.
Adamantius, Egyptian bishop, 142,
146.
Adelphius, 257, 297, 48 [, 483, 486;
letter to, 575.
Adolius, *I27, 147.
Adoption, 404, 441 ; 445 (O. T.) ;
implies a real son, 329 ; implied
in creation, 398 ; how so, 339,
383, 390 sqq. (see Sotiship).
Adoptive sonship of Israel, &c., 580.
Adoptive sonship through Christ,
376.
Adrianople, Arian cruelty at, 2'j^sq. ;
bishops detained at, 479.
Aedesius, 2.
Aegaeon, 10.
Aeithales, Arian presbyter, 70.
Aeithales, P. of Alexandria, 139.
Aelianus, *I27= 'Helianus,' 148.
Aelius Palladius, prefect of Egypt,
506.
^luriont, Egypt, 127, 142.
Aerius, prefect of Egypt, 505.
Aetius, *I27, 147.
Aetiusf, Palestine, 127, 130.
Aetius (Anomoean), liv., 453, 498 ;
ordained deacon, 471 ; rejected
by Arians, 471.
Aezanes, Ethiopian prince, 250.
Africa, bishops of, 127 ; cf. 448.
Agapetus, deacon of Lucifer, 486.
Agathammonf, Egypt, 121, 142,
146.
Agathammon, Meletian bishop, 137.
Agathodsemon, Egyptian bishop,
. 297, 483, 486.
Agathas, deacon, 71.
Agathon, Egyptian bp., formerly
monk, 560.
Agathus, presb., 72.
Agathus, Egyptian bp., 257, 297,
483, 486.
Aidoneus, 10.
Albinus, Rufinus, consul, 140, 503,
523-
Albinus, consul, 504, 544.
Alcmene, loi.
Alexander the Great, 249.
Alexander, deacon, 71.
Alexander, deacon, 72.
Alexander, presbyter of Alexandria,
71.
Alexander, presbyter of Alexandria,
71, 139-
Alexander of CP., 227, 233, 565.
Alexander, *I26, 147.
Alexander, *I27, 147, *554.
Alexander, of Achaia ?, * 147.
Alexander, bishop of Thessalonica,
108, 114, 134, 1^2 sq.
Alexander (of Alexandria), 2, 68, 103,
112, 115, 125, 126, 131, 136,
227, 229, 232, 234, 235, 243,
245, 249, 296, 297, 299, 307,
358, 458, 459, 565 ; wrote Festal
Letter for 328, 503 ; death of,
xxi., Ixxxi. , 503.
Alexandria, jurisdiction of see of,
178, note ', 503 ; country dis-
trict of, 137, 558? list of clergy
(in 322), 71 ; clergy of (in 335),
139 ; churches at, 243, 273 (see
Tkeonas, Quirinus, Dionysius,
Ctzsareum,Mendidium);dmrches
given to Arians, 290, 296, 299 ;
gentile orgies in churches, 291 ;
outrages there (in 339), 116;
religious movement at, 278 ;
Egyptian Council (in 338-9),
115, 120, 122, 125; Council of
(in 362), 481.
Almsdeeds commended (see Poor).
Alypius, *I27, 147.
Amantius, consul, 504, 544.
Amantius, '127, 147, *SS4.
Amantiust, Egypt, 127.
Amantusf, Gaul, 127.
Amatus, bishop of Nilopolis, 548.
Ambytianus, deacon, 71.
Amen in worship, 244.
Amillianusf, Gaul, 127.
Ammianus, *554.
Ammon (the god), 8, 17.
Ammon, Arian, 297; secretary to
bp. Gregory, 96.
Ammon, Egyptian bishop, 142.
Ammon, monk of Nitria, later a
bishop, letter of, 487, 569 note.
Ammonas, presbyter of Mareotis,
72, 134, 140.
Ammonianust, Egypt, 127, 136, 142.
Ammonius, (3rd century), 178, 179
sqq., 186.
Ammonius, layman, 279.
Ammonius, deacon, 71 ; P. of Alxa.,
139-
Ammonius, deacon, 72, 134, 140.
Ammonius, presbyter, 72.
Ammonius, *I47, *554-
Ammonius t, Egypt, 127.
Ammonius t, Egypt, 127.
Ammonius, bp. of Pachemmon, 483,
486, 487, 497, 560.
Ammonius, bishops called, 487,
note ', 497.
Ammonius, two bishops named, 257,
297.
Ammonius, bp. of Antinoopolis,
548.
Ammonius, bp. of Latopolis, 548.
Ammonius, Meletian bishop, 137.
Ammoniaca, 251, 297.
Amos, Meletian bishop, 137.
Amphion of Nicomedia 104.
II. GENERAL INDEX.
593
Amphion of Cilicia, 227.
Amun of Nitria, 487 ; his death,
212 ; letter to, 556.
A.<Tiyntius, P. of Alxa., 139."
Anagamphust, Egypt, 127, 257,297.
Analogies, value of human, 367.
Anatolius of Euboea, 481, 483, 486.
Ancyra, outrages there, 117.
Andragathiust, Egypt, 127, 539.
Andreasf, Egypt, 127 ; 483, 486,
548.
Andronicust, Egypt, 127, 539.
Angels, 359, 362 ; rejoice over the
Church on earth, 522 ; could not
redeem, 43 ; may not be prayed
to, 400.
Angels, heathen, 14, 15.
Animals, sinners compared to in
Scripture, 510; Arians compared
to, 370, note.
Annianus, *I27, 147.
Annius Bassus, consul, 503, 512.
Anomoeanism, liv., 467.
Anomoean confession of faith, 498.
Anthropomorphism, (heathen), 15-
Antichrist, 530 ; Arianism, precursor
of, 69, 71, 146, &c.
Antigonus, *I27, 147, *554.
Antinous, 9.
Antinous, Meletian deacon, 137,
Antioch, simplicity of Fathers at, 474;
coimcil of dedication, xxxiv. , 461 ;
affairs at (in 344), 277 ; Athan.
and Constantius at, 240 ; the
'Old ' Church there, 483 ; schism
of, 481 sqq., iiff], 580, note.
Antiochus, officer, 242.
Antiochus and John, letter to, 579.
Antoninust, Italy, 127.
Antonius, Flavius, civil officer, 140.
Antiope, 10.
Antony, Life of, discussed, 188 sqq. ;
date of Vita, 218, note ; chrono-
logy of his life, 196, 199, 200,
208 ; parentage and youth of,
195; embraces poverty, 196;
his sister an abbess, 210 ; ig-
norant of letters, 215 ; writes
letters, 217 ; writes to Gregory,
274; temptations of, 197 sqq.,
206, 207; combats with demons,
210 ; casts out demons, 213,
217; never bathed, 209; his
diet, &c., 198, 208 ; visits
Alexandria, 208 ; his abode in
the ' Inner mountain,' 209 ; his
sermon, 200 — 208 ; again visits
Alexandria, 214, 503 ; escorted
by Athanasius, 215; his miracles,
200, 209, 210, 211, 217; his
miracles not his own, 209, 218 ;
learns the forgiveness of his sins,
213; his clairvoyance, 212; sees
soul of Amun, 212 ; sees passage
of souls, 213 ; vision of Arian
outrages, 217 sq. ; iritolerant of
heretics, 214; refutes Arians,
214 ; Antony and the philoso-
phers, 215 sqq. ; his will and
death, 220 ; date of death, 218,
note; his bodily appearance, 200;
cheerful appearance of, 214; hale
to the last, 221 ; fame of, 221 ;
respect for the clergy, 214 ;
VOL. IV.
polite manners, 215 ; simile of
fish out of water, 219.
Anubis (god), 15.
Anubion, bp. of Xois, 142, 146, 548.
Aotasf, Egypt, 127.
Aphraates(on Monasticism), 191.
Aphrodite, 8, lo, 17.
Aphrodisiust, Cyprus, 127.
Aphthonius, deacon, 71 ; presbyter
of Alexandria, 109, 121, 139.
Apis, 16.
Apis, Alexandrian presbyter, 71, 132.
Apocalypse, canonical, 552.
Apocryphal books, 551.
Apollo, 9, 13, 19, 62, 216.
Apollinarius, 481, 486, 570, note.
Apollodorust, Egypt, 127.
Apollonius, presbyter, 72.
Apollonius, Deacon, 71 ; P. of Alexa.,
139-
Apollonius, Meletian presbyter, 137.
Apolloniusf, Egypt, 127, 142.
Apolloniusf, Egypt, 127.
Apolloniusf, Egypt, 127.
Apolloniusf, Egypt, 127, 297.
Apollos, 3 deacons of Mareotis, 140.
Apollosf, Egypt, 127, 142, 297,
497 (?) j formerly monk, 560.
Apologists, theology of the, xxiii.
Apology against Arians, its method,
97-
Apostles, authors of Church law, 115,
117, 118; 'Teaching of,' not
canonical, 552.
Apphusf , -ff^jj///, 127.
Appianus, Deacon, 139.
Appianus, *r47 ; *554.
Aprianus, *I27, 147, 554,
Aprianus, '148, 554.
Aquila, version of, 85.
Aquilaf, Egypt, 127.
Aquileia, 128.
Arabians, 16, 489.
Arabionf, Egypt, 127, 539.
Arb?ethion, Egyptian bishop, 142,
146.
Arbetion, consul, 497, 504.
Arcaph, John (see John).
Areas, 10.
Archbishop, title of, 137, 564, 566,
note.
Archidamus, Roman presb. , 1 26, 554.
Archelaus, count, 212. •
Ares, 10, 12, 17.
Arianism, origins of, 69-71 ; original
formulas of, 70; adoptionist foun-
dation of, 460 ; characterised by
Ath.,531, 536, 537; novel, 310,
312 ; unscriptural, 312, 324,
431 ; destroys idea of Redemp-
tion, 415 ; polytheistic, 429; like
the tares, 366 ; anti- Christian,
227; diabolical, 153; from the
devil, 225, 227.
Arian motives, 273, 275, 279 sq.,
282, 285, 287, 453, 467, 555 ;
phraseology, 161, 164; evasions,
228 ; variations, 457 ; creeds
frequently changed, 226; coun-
cils enumerated, 494.
Arian creed, a, 225 ; creeds, 449,
454, 498; (of Antioch), 461 —
464; Sirmium, 464 — 466; Seleu-
cia, 466, 470; Nik^ or CP.,
Qq
467 ; tenets, 154, 225, 229, 567,
568 ; statements, 457 ; texts,
403, 407 sq.
Arian objections refuted, 492.
Arian arguments, 229 sqq., 358, 361,
367, 403, 459.
Arians convicted by councils, 112, 151
5^/.; evasions at Nicsea, 163; called
PorphyriansbyConstantine, 288;
their conduct after Nicsea, 161 ;
party, leaders (in 343), 119, 123,
125, 126 ; leaders at Sardica,
275 ; excommunicated at Sar-
dica, 126 ; their proceedings in
356 at Alexa., 551 ; their per-
secutions (in 359), 561, 562;
their efforts in the West (after
364), 489 ; their appointments to
bishoprics, 226, 227, 249.
Arians compared to various ani-
mals, 370, note ; like Mani-
chees, 231 ; compared to Jews,
150 sq., 177, 310, 348, 575,
578 ; to Sadducees, &c., 227 ;
reason like Jews, 408 ; heathen-
ish, 230, 232 ; affect heathenism,
291 ; worse than heathen, 293 ;
not Christian, 306, 312; God-
less, 151 note, 159; ©eo^dxoi,
152 ; taxed with Atheism, 469;
profane the Holy Spirit, 579 ;
Antichrists, 530, 561 ; partisans
of the Devil, 187 ; flippantly
contentious, 320 ; dissemblers,
311 sq., 314, 337 ; use Scripture
language, 306, 310, 337; secular
influence of, 232; trust in patron-
age, 371; outrages, I16, 124;
barbarity of, 292 ; violence of,
539, 540.
Arians confuted by name of ' Father,'
434; their doctrine of God, xxix.
^1-, 370 ; view of Wisdom, 368
sq., 429 ; of the creative Word,
361, 364: the true view, 365;
doctrine of the Son, 321 ; Chris-
tology, 352, 423, 465, note 5,
466, note 6, 575 ; they deny
real Incarnation, 415 ; theology
polytheistic, 398, 402; idolaters,
402, 403 ; trust in a Creature,
371 ; their worship of Christ,
idolatry, xxx., 214, 230, 310,
356, 360, 477,.575> 577 (see
Ancmceans, semt-Arians).
' Arian history, ' discussed, 266 sqq.
Ariminum, 451, 453; numbers at
council of, 490 ; proceedings at,
454 ; praise of the bps. there,
456.
Arintheus, Consul 499, 506.
Arionf, Egypt, 127, 548.
Ariston, two Egypt, bishops, 142.
Ariston, Egyptian bishop, formerly
monk, 560.
Aristonf, Gaul, \TJ.
Aristaeus, 14.
Aristasus, Grecian bishop, 227.
Aristotle's definition of man quoted,
13-
Ariusf, Egypt, 127 ; coadjutor bp.
of Panopolis, 548.
Arius, bishop from Palestine, *I26.
fi27, 130, 148, 274, 276.
594
II. GENERAL INDEX.
Arius, Arian presbyter, 70.
Ariiis, XV., xxviii., 69, 70, 103, 163,
185, 225, 226, 229, 232, 294,
296, 307, 485, 567 ; deposition
of, 69 ; at Nicsea, 474 ; presents
a creed to Constantine, 144 ;
admitted to communion at Jeru-
salem, 144,270; professes ortho-
doxy, 232, 565 ; perjury and
death of, 233, 288, 565 ; letter
about his death, 564 ; vanity of,
308; his Thalia, 160, 178, 226,
233, 307, 308, 309> 310, 3,11.
368, 470 ; metre ot the Thalia,
457, note ; his Thalia quoted,
160, 457.
Arius quoted, 328, 361 ; letter of,
458; opinions of, 308, 31 1 ;
copied Asterius, 155.
Aries, council of, 280.
Armenia, a place of exile, 276, 277.
Armenians, 16, 64.
Arpocration, presbyter, 71.
Arsacius, eunuch, 273.
Arsenius (of Hypsele)t, 127; 114,
1055^., 120, 122, 125, 133, 134,
138, 271, cf. xxxviii. ; restored to
his see, 548 ; letter to Athana-
sius, 136.
Arsenoitic canal, 200.
Art, 14, 15.
' Artemas ' (Artemon), 460.
Artemidorus, Egyptian bishop, 142,
548.
Artemis, 9, lo, 13, 17, 216.
Artemius, dux /Egypti, 505, 564,
note.
Asbestos, 51, 61.
Asceticism, practice of at this time,
560 ; motives of, 197, 198, 200.
Ascetics, 51, 62, 64, 556.
Asclepas of Gaza, 123, note, 125,
126, *I27, 148, 256, 271, *554.
Asclepius* (see Asclepas).
Asclepius, 63.
Asteiicus, presbyter, 497, 498, 504.
Asterius, Arian bishop, 456.
Asterius, count, 242, 247, 289.
Asterius, Arian Sophist, xxviii. sq.,
155, note 2. 163 ; antecedents of,
459, 460, 324 ; on divine Wis-
dom, 325 ; quoted, 361, 363,
368, 369 sg., 394, 399, 426 sg. ;
extracts Irom, 325, 459 sg.
Asterius. bishop from Arabia, *I26,
ti27, 148, 274, 276, 483, 486.
Astrology, 551.
Athanasius, son of Capito, deacon of
Alexandria, 71 ; presbyter of
Alxa., 109, 121, 139.
Athanasiusf, Cyprus, 127.
AthanasiusofAnazarba, 458, (quoted)
459-
Athanasius, teachers of, 66 ; his
parents, 562 ; his aunt perse-
cuted by Gregory, 274 ; Atha-
nasius and Bishop Alexander,
103 ; dates of his exiles, <kc.,
496 ; exiles, &c., enumerated,
499 ; early intercourse with An-
tony, xv., 191 ; inherits Antony's
sheepskin, 220 ; signs depos.
Arii, 71 ; prominent at Nicnsa,
xviii., 103 ; election as bishop.
103 ; his alleged youthwhen made
bishop, 487, 503 ; date of elec-
tion, 131 n. ; alleged wealth of,
105 ; his episcopal visitations,
139; absent from Alexandria
(in 330-331), 512; troubles (in
330-331), 514 sq-; illness of
(end of 331), 515 sg. ; accused
by Meletians (331-2), 517; at
court (332), 503, 512, 515;
charges against him, 132, 135,
146 ; declines to attend synod of
C:tsarea, 503 ; exiled (in 335),
460 (see Tyre, council of, Arse-
nius, &c. ) ; appeals to Constan-
tine, 145 ; first exile of, 503,
527 ; banished to Gaul, 93, loi,
105, 115, 146, 288 ; restored (in
337). 272, 531, 532 ; at CP.,
272 ; joyful return (in 337),
104, 328; escorts Antony, 215 ;
charges against him (in 338),
loi sg., 109; (in 339), 114, 115,
537 ; retires (in 339), 95, 273 ;
goes to Rome (in 339), 239 ; at
Rome (339, 340), 539 ; 18
months at Rome, 115 ; at Tre-
veri (342-3), 239 ; at Sardica,
119, 123, 124, 275, 554-556;
acquitted at Sardica, 126 ; letters
to the Mareotis, &c., 554; at
Naissus (Easter, 344), 239, 504 ;
price on his head (in 344), 276 ;
at Aquileia (in 345-6), 128,
239, 504 ; letters to him from
Constantius, 128 ; restoration
from second exile, 544 ; second
visit to Rome (in 346), 128 ; at
Treveri (346), 240; visits Adri-
anople (in 346), 276 ; interviews
with Constantius, 240 ; visits
Constantius at Antioch, 277,
285 ; welcomed by a council at
Jerusalem, 130 ; his return (in
346), 128, 277-9, 496, 497,
504 ; occasion of the de Deer.,
150.
Athanasius, and Constantius, 236
sgq. ; prays for Constantius, 242 ;
did not write to Magnentius,
240 ; rejects overtures of Mag-
nentius, 241 ; anxieties (in 355),
558 ; before third exile, 246 ;
expelled by Syrianus, 247 sg.,
263 ; third exile, 497; searched
for (356), 291 ; denounced by
Constantius, 250 ; defends his
flight, 251, 254 sqg. ; letters to
monks, 563 sg. ; (in 359-360),
561, 562; holds a council in
362, 481-486 ; exiled under
Julian, 487; movements(in 363),
567, note ; underjulian and Jov-
ian, 498, 505 ; (in 364), 569 sg. ;
exile under Valens, 499 ; death
cf, 499, 506 ; date of his death,
496.
Athanasius, church called after, 650.
Athanasius not founder of a sect, 307 ;
repeats himself, 47, note, 325,
360; usuallyemploysasecretary,
242 ; last writings, 564, 566 ;
his letter /f/z/jj-M/j-, 550; spurious
letters of, 581 ; conciliatory spirit
of, 566 ; popular with the hea-
then, 290, 291 ; supported by a
majority at Alxa. , 250 ; modesty
of, '562, 563, 566, 574 ; how far
an Origenist, Ixviii., 2, 33^;
physical philosophy of, 18, 25 ;
psychology of, 20; his anthro-
pology discussed, 33 (see Man) ;
soteriology, 33 ; eschatology of,
33 ; his use of ' hypostasis,' 80
(see Hypostatis).
Athas t, Egypt, 127, 142.
Atheism, Arians taxed with, 469
(see Arians).
Athena, 9, 10, 13.
Athenodorus, *I26, 148, *554.
Athenodorus, Egyptian bp., 257, 297.
Atonement of Christ, 341, 343, 351
^•1 355 (see Christ).
Atras, bp. of Maximinopolis, 539.
Augarus of Cyrus, 456.
Augustalian prefecture, xc, 93, 143.
Augustamnica made a separate pro-
. vince, 504.
Augustine, St., 32.
Auxentius, 226, 298, 453, 454, 455,
488, 489, 490, 570 ; account of,
493, note.
Auxibiust, Cyprus, 127.
Auxumis in Ethiopia, 251 ; princes
of, 249, 250.
B^A.oj/, or veil, 239.
Balacius, duke, 273; death of, 219,
274.
Banishments procured by Arians,
109 (see Arians).
Baptism, 370 sgg., 558 ; (by heretics)
invalid, 371.
Baptismal formula, 441, 443, 466,
470.
Baptistery, 94.
Bardion, eunuch, 569.
Bardion, count, 277.
Baruch, canonical, 552.
Basil, bishop of Ancyra, 126, 226,
472.
Basil of Armenia, 227.
Basil the Great, Ixii. , 449 ; on ' Hy-
postasis,' 77 ; eulogy of, 580.
Basilicus, Arian bishop, 456.
Basilides, 307, 359, 484, 485.
Basilina, 271.
Bassus, *I26, 148.
Bastamon or Blastammont, Egypt,
127, 142.
Baudiusf, Africa, 127.
' Begotten,' how applicable to crea-
tures, 3S0 (see ' Son ').
Belief, a right, necessary, 407.
Bernicianus, Arian, 568.
Berytus, 69.
Bishop, throne of, 109 ; visitations
of, 108, 139 ; qualifications
for a, 115 ; temptations of the
office,' 560.
Bishops, coadjutors for aged, 548 ;
elections of, 558 ; married, 539,
560; equality of all, 113 ; Apos-
tolic, 558 ; the office ordered by
Christ, 558 ; essential to the
Church; 558.
Bishops, expelled by Arians, 248,
251,256,258; cruelly banished,
II. GENERAL INDEX.
595
297 ; banished by George, (357),
257, 297.
Bitbynians, 16.
Blastammon (see Bastamori).
Boccon, presb., 72, 134, 140.
Body appropriated by the Word, 40,
53 ; instrument of the Word,
40, 41, 59, 60 ; of Christ mortal,
47 ; incorruptible, 47.
Body, the Universe a, 58.
Bceotia, 62.
* Blasphemy,' creed so called, 466.
Blessedness, what, 39.
Bresidas, notary, 499, 505.
Broseus (see Verissimus),
Bucolia, 209, 539.
Cabiri, the, 62.
Caecilian of Carthage, 227.
Csesarea, intended synod at, 141, 503.
Csesarea in Cappadocia, 240.
Csesareum, Church in Alxa., 243,
291, 297, 498, 505.
Calemerus, deacon of Antioch, 486.
Calendar, Egyptian and Syrian, 455,
note ; Alexandrian, 501.
Calepodius, *I26, 148.
Cales, Meletian bishop, 137.
Callinicus of Pelusium, 132, 137, 517.
Caloes, *554 (see Calvus).
Caloes *554 (see Chalbis).
Calosiris, bp. of Arsenoe, 539.
Calvus, *I48 (see Caloes),
Canon of Scriptures, 552.
Canons, 92, 96, 113, 115, 116, I17,
282, 288.
Capitot, Africa, 127.
Capito of Sicily, 227.
Capito, father of a presbyter, 121.
Cappadocians, 16..
Cappadocian fathers, xxxiii. (see
setni-Arians).
Carpocrates, 339.
Carpon, deacon, 72.
Carpones, Arian presbyter, 70, 1 13.
Carterius, bishop, 256, 271, 486
(see Karterius).
Castrenses, 119.
Castus, *I27, 148, *554.
Cataphrygians, 307 (see Montanists).
Cataphronius, Prefect of Egypt, 290,
292, 497, 505-
Catechumens not present at Eucha-
rist, 115, 116, 125.
Categories of 'essence,' 'quality,'
&c., 478, 493.
Catholic Church, 95.
Catholic, name of, 301.
Catholic Epistles, seven canonical,
552-
Catholicus or Receiver-general, 107,
1.44. 145-
Catulinus, consul, 497, 504.
Cecropius of Nicomedia, 226, 298.
Celestinust, Africa, 127.
Celibacy, 557.
Censor, 134.
Cerealis, consul, 497, 505.
Cessilianusf, Africa, 127.
Chsereu, station of, 219, 274 ; or
Thereu, 498.
Chalbis, *I26, 148.
Chaldeans, 62, 6},, 64.
Chalice, the broken, 106, &c.
Chares, Arian presbyter, 69.
Charybdis, 15.
Chorepiscopi, 144.
Chrestus, 104.
Christ, titles of, 29 ; everything to
all, 526, 528 ; becomes many
things for the many, 526, 528,
541, sq., 543: birth of, 55 ;
human attributes of, 232 ; earth-
ly life of, 45, 572, 576; came
on earth to die, 425 ; death of,
46; death of, marvellous, 63;
died in the stead of all, 40, 56 ;
exaltation of, 330 ; eternal King-
ship of, 436, 462, 463.
Christ, Personality of, Divine, 179;
unique Revelation of God, 341 ;
' from God ' in unique sense,
163, 469 ; Sonship of, 164,
166 ; not Son of God by adop-
tion, 154, 160 ; His Godhead
the Father's, 370, 407, 414, 416;
His Godhead not against Unity
of God, 397 ; ' Hand ' of God,
443, 444; Hand and Power,
161 ; the Image of God, 89 (see
Adoption, Image).
Christ, if not God, could not redeem,
577, 579 ; in what sense created,
180, 184 ; is ' created as man,'
237 sqq., 354, 381, for our sakes,
378, 388 ; human nature of, 83,
178 sq. ; His manhood a gar-
ment, 334, 352, 577; 'anointed'
and ' sent ' as man, 446, 447 ;
kinship with man, 388 ; two-
fold aspect in Scripture, 409
sq., 416 ; acts of, divine and
human, 46, 579 ; divine know-
ledge of, 260; human knowledge
of, 414 sqq., 416 sqq.; subject
to ignorance as man, 418; in
what sense he ' feared,' 423 sq. ;
why adored, 157, 575-577; His
human Body not worshipped as
such, 575 ; His immutability,
165.
Christ, why ' First-born,' 381, 382
sq. ; did not acquire divinity,
328; His Sonship not moral
only, 165 ; not merely inspirjd,
410. 574. 578 ; priesthood of,
353 ; mediator "and inicicessor,
435 ; mediator as man only,
352; 'asked' and 'received'
for our sake, 415, 435 ; his work
vicarious, 40, 56, 553 ; redeemed
all from death, 531 ; sacrifice of,
531. 541.572. 577. 579; suppHed
our lack of merit, 435 ; sanctified
as man, 333 J^., 335; His ilesh,
the first free from sin, 381 ; His
flesh deified, 414.
Christ our forerunner, 330 ; guides
to the Father, 542 ; safety in,
386; salvation in Him alone,
543 ;' the Healer, 60 ; the typical
man, 259 ; example of, 335,
note, 336, 511 ; imitation of His
Cross, 523 ; miracles of, 45, 48,
49, 150 sq., 576, 579; to be
known by His works, 65 ;
moral power of, 52, 53, 62, 64 ;
shewn to live by His power, 53 ;
Q q 2
invisibly persuades men, 36, 52,
65 ; wide influence of, 63 ;
abolishes fear, 424 ; the Saints
thirst for Him, 549 ; traditional
saying of, 179; His death kept
as a feast, 548 ; second coming
of, 66 ; christological debate^ ai
Corinth, 570, 574. (See Son,
Word, Incarnation, Lordship,
Atonement, Redemption. )
Christology, 570 sqq., 575.
Chronology, Ixxxi. sqq., 131, note,
140, note, 500 ; Athanasian,
495 sqq-
Chronological tables, 496, 502.
Church, and the civil power, 121,
123 ; has no secular power, 286 ;
independent of State, 289; its
life a joy to Pleaven, 522.
Churches, seats of clergy in, 459 ; or-
naments of, 94; sometimes used
when unfinished, 243 sq. ; of no
value without the faith, 550 sq.
Cilicians, 16.
Claudiusf, Palestine, 127, 130.
Clementius, officer of Magnentius,
241.
Cleopatra, 9, note.
Clergy, allowances of, 293.
Coinherence, xxxii. , 366, note I, 370.
Coldaeust, Africa, 127.
Colluthus, 71, 107; schism of, xvi.,
139, 140, 141.
Colluthus, Meletian bishop, 137.
Commentaries, prisons called, 249.
Communicatio idiomatum, 410, 4II.
Comodus, deacon, 71.
Comon, deacon, 72.
Consortiusf, Africa. 127.
Consortiusf, Egypt, 127.
Constans, 127, 238 sqq., 272, 285.
286, 462, 497 ; consulates of,
496, 503. 504. 532, 541. 544 ; at
Milan (in 342), 239 ; he and Con-
stantius call a council, 274 ; at
Treviri, 503 ; murder of, 278 ;
death of, 504.
Constantine, 232, 233, 271, 272, 517,
565, 568 ; consulates of, 503,
506 ; religion of, 145 ; letters of,
132 sq., 135 ; at Nicaea, 73, 74 ;
intervenes for Athan., 105 ;
writes on behalf of Ath., 108,
145 ; letter to John Arcaph, 136 ;
banishes Athan., 105 ; refuses to
appoint Arian bp. at Alxa.,
28S ; death of, 503 ; honoured
Virgins, 252.
Constantine II., 272 ; consulates of,
503, 506 ; letter of, 146, 288.
Constantius Caesar, see Gallus.
Constantius, Julius (see Julins Con-
stantius).
Constantius (see Costyllius), 225, 235,
276, 279, 280, 312, 409, 452,
453, 454, 471, 490, 49(3, 5^8;
consulates of, 496, 497, 503, 504,
505. 532, 541, 544; appoints
Gregory to Alxa., 273; favours
Athan. (344-6), 277 ; writes to
Alhanas., 127, 278; letters in
favour of Athan., 129, 130, 277 ;
receives Atiian. at Antioch,
129 ; {continued)
596
II. GENERAL INDEX.
Constantius (cont.), 'most religious,'
95; knowledge of Scripture, 252;
sole emperor, 504; letter to
Ath, (350), 247 ; at Council of
Milan, 299, 497 ; persecutes
(353 — 356), 280 ; ecclesiastical
tyranny of, 289, 299 ; banish-
ments by, 146, 256 ; letters
against Ath. , 249 ; violence of,
565 ; discreditable letter of, 288 ;
ignores memory of Conslans,
288 ; addressed by Lucifer, 561 ;
reply to deputies of Ariminum,
479-
Constantius, ' most irreligious,' 456,
462, 479 ; like Ahab, 287, 290,
295 ; Belshazzar, 287 ; Herod,
289 ; Pharaoh, 280, 281 ; worse
than Saul, Pilate, &c., 295 ;
forerunner of Antichrist, 287 ;
Antichrist, 298 — 300 ; cruelty
of, 270, 274 ; at the mercy of
his servants, 296 ; his domestic
bloodshed, &c., 296; 'heretic,'
264, 451 ; baptism of, 238, note
I ; death of, 281, 497, 505 ; dies
a heretic, 467.
Consuls, 452, 454, 462, 496 sqq.,
503—506, (none in 351), 504.
Controversy about words, danger of,
485.
Copres, presb., 72.
Corax, 14.
Corinth, theological debates there,
570, 574-
Corruption, 38, 39, 41, 60 ; penal,
38, 39, 40 ; and incorruption,
38, 40 ; undone by Incarnation,
40 (see Sin, Redetnption).
Cosmus t, Africa, 127.
'Costyllius,' 298, 301.
Councils (see Niccea, Rome, Sardica,
Milan, Antioch, Sir>nium, '^c),
judicial function of, 151, sq. ;
authority of, magnified, 152, n. ;
not irreformable, III; force of
theii decrees, 1 1 1, 113; ecumeni-
cal, Ixxv., 468 ; not dependent
on the State, 106 ; Nicsea and
Antioch compared, 473 ; signi-
ficance of their large number,
468 ; scandal of frequent, 451.
Council of Antioch in 269, 473 ;
at Alxa. (in 324), 139 ; Tyre,
103, 104 ; count presided at
Tyre, 105; Alexandria (338-9),
100 sg. ; Rome (340), 100, no,
Alexandria (362), 481, 566 ;
Councils held between 362 and
368, 489, 566, 568, 570.
' Create,' two senses of in Scripture,
373-
Creation, unbroken order of, 59 ; not
eternal, 323 ; why in bondage,
429-
Creation peculiar to God, 157, 359 ;
requires no mediator, 154 sq.,
! 362 ; an end in itself, 376; due
to God's bounty, 26 ; an act of
condescension, 383, 391 sq. ;
anticipatory of redemption, 391 ;
simultaneous, 374, 381 ; applies
to Christ as Man, 159 ; symbol-
ised by the Holy Week, 509.
Creator, meaning of, 37.
Creatures, in what sense ' of God, '
162 sq.
Creed of Nicsea, 73, 75 ; of Csesarea,
74 ; baptismal, 74 ; of Athana-
sius, 84; "of Lucian'461, cf. 466;
Creeds, Arian (see Dated Creed,
Blasphemy, Anonicean, Arian).
Cretans, 17.
Crispinust, Italy, 127, 239.
Crocodiles, 200.
Cronius, Meletian bishop, 137.
Cronius, Egyptian bishop, 142.
Cronos, 10, 12, 62, 216.
Cross, the, 36, 579 ; why Christ died
on, 47 sqq. , 49, 50 ; mocked by
heathen, 4 ; prophesied, 55, 56 ;
victory of the, 331.
Cross, Sign of, 53, 62, 65, 66, 199,
202, 205.
Cucusus, in Cappadocia, 256, 272.
Curiosi, 138, note.
Cursus publicus, 136, note.
Cydonius, *I48, *554.
Cymatius (see Kymatius).
Cynics, 569.
Cyprianusf, Africa, 127,
Cyprus, bishops of, 127.
Cyriacus, Moesian bishop, 227.
Cyril of Alexandria, on Athanasius,
500.
Cyril of Jenisalem, xlix.
Cyrus, presbyter, 71-
Cyrus of Beroea, 256, 271.
Cyzicus, 298.
Daglaifus, consul, 499, 505.
Dalmatius, brother of Constantine,
134; consul, 503, 517.
Damasus, Bishop of Rome, 489,
493-
Danae, 10.
Daniel, weeks of, 57, 356.
Dated creed, 452, 454; revoked,
466 ; work of a few men, 453.
Dates, legitimate use of, 452.
Datianus, count, 277.
Datyllus +, ^jiji///, 127.
David, the author of the Psalms,
262.
Death, 21 ; abolished in Christ, 332,
50, 52, 60 ; reign of, 38, 39 ;
no longer reigns, 47, 50; fear
of 47, 51 ; death of Christ, its
import, 47 ; central purpose of
Incarnation, 47 ; why not from
sickness, 47, 48 ; why not glo-
rious, 49 ; death of Christians,
47, 50 sq., 412; punishment
after death, 524.
Debt (in relation to Redemption),
3 1) 33 ; debt paid by Christ,
what, 41, 47, 384-
Declopetust, Gaul, 127.
' Dedication,' creed of, '461, cf. 466,
470.
Deification of man, 65, 159, 329,
374, 386, 411, 413, 415, 572,
576, 578 sq. ; of creatures in
Christ, 477; by grace, 311 ; the
Spirit the agent of, 406 (see
Man).
Delphi, 62.
Demeter, 9, 13.
Demelrius, deacon, 72, 134, pres-
byter, 140.
Demons, 4, 43, 44, 62, 64, 66, 192 ;
visible shapes of, 197, 198, 202 ;
corporeal, 204 ; grotesque tales
of, 210, 213 ; in the air, 50,202,
213; impotent against the godly,
202, 204 ; our own fault if they
assail us, 207 ; quote Scripture,
203 ; stir up war, 65 ; the cause
of sin, 201.
Demon, Christ not a, 63.
Demophilus, 226, 453, 454, 490.
Descent into hades, 423, 424, 454,
467, 572.
Desideriusf, Gaul, 127.
Deutero-canonical books, purpose of,
552-
Devil, the, 50; 196 sqq., 529; de-
scribed in the O. T., 202; fall of
the, 399.
Dianius, bishop of Cassarea, ill.
Dianius (the younger) of Csesarea,
580.
Didache, not canonical, 552.
Didymus, deacon, 72.
Didymus, deacon, 72.
Didymus, presb., 72, 134.
Dilatation (see Majxellus).
Diocletian era, 503, note 4.
Diodorus of Tarsus, 580, note.
Diodorus of Tenedos, *I26, 148,
271, 276, *554.
Diodorus of Tyre, letter to, 580.
Diogenes, notary, comes to Alxa.,
246, 288, 289, 497, 504.
Diomed, 10, 13.
Dionysius, *I27, 148.
Dionysius, bishop of Lodi, 239.
Dionysius, count, 1 14, 137, 138, 141,
142.
Dionysius, deacon, 71.
Dionysius, presb., 72.
Dionysius, presbyter, 71, 139.
Dionysius of Alexandria, 176 sqq.;
language of, 168, note 7, 174,
177, 181 ; quoted, 167, 473;
extracts from his book, 182;
correspondence with Dionys.
of Rome, 492 ; his memory
honoured, 177 ; church of, 497,
499- 0^0
Dionysius of Milan, 248, 256, 281,
287, 298, 299.
Dionysius of Rome, 473 ; quoted,
167 sq., cf. 181.
Dionysus, 8, ID, 17, 63.
Dioscorus, presbyter, 71, 139, 257,
297.
Dioscorus, presb., 72, 140.
Dioscorus, *I26, 148.
Dioscorust, £gypi, 127, 142, 297.
Dioscorus t, Egypt, 127.
Dioscorus, Meletian presbyter, 137.
Dioscuri, 10.
Discipline, salutary for Christians,
540 sq.
Divine Existence, an endinitself,377.
Docetism, 572 j^., 575, 579.
Dodona, 62.
Domnion of Sirmium, 27 1.
Domitianus, *I26, 148.
Domitianus, *I27, 148; (Domitius),
*554-
II. GENERAL INDEX.
597
Donatianust, Gaul, 127.
Donatus, proconsul, 256.
Doubt, right attitude toward, 367.
Doxology, form of the, 235, n.
Dracontius, count, 498.
Dracontius, bishop, 257, 297, 481,
483, 486 ; letter to, 557 sqq.
Dreams, 20, 21.
Dualism (Gnostic), 7, 37.
Dukes of Egypt, xc.
Dynamiust, Africa, 127.
Dynamius, soldier, 293, 302.
Dyscolius, t, Gaul, 127.
'E?5os, or form of God, 403, 478.
'Ep7ci(Tiai (trades), 108.
EixTfySeia, 150, note.
Earthquake (of A.D. 365), 505.
Easter (339), 95; universal celebra-
tion of, 537 ; symbolises the
world to come, 509 ; how to be
kept, 542 ; in what spirit to be
kept, 547) 549; passover type
of, 548? &c. ; question of at
Nicsea, 452, 490 ; arrangement
about it at Sardica, 504, 544;
Athan. fixes it for the Romans,
544 ; differences about Easter,
504 ; dispute about date of, 544,
Arian blunder as to, 503.
Ecclesiasticus not canonical, 552.
Economy (Incarnation), 354, 376, &c.
Ecstasy, 419.
Ecumenical council, 104 (see C^««<;//j).
Eden, garden of, 38 ; figurative, 5.
Edessa, 128.
Egypt, 55. 56, 62; Egyptian re-
ligion, 291 ; various worships
in, 16; its idolatry, 16, 17;
Epyptian customs, their bread,
199 ; burial customs, 220 ;
Egyptians, 8, 16, 17, 61, 62, 63,
64; bishops of, 127; sees, 137,
486, 539, 548 ; list of bishops,
142 ; bishops of, protest at Tyre,
142 ; its bishops unanimous,
493 ; orthodoxy of, 300 ; Egyp-
tian Christians lax in fasting,
538 (see Alexandria, Mareotis,
Thebaid.
Eleusius (see Seleucius).
Elias, bishop of Tanis, 539.
Ellanicus (see Hellanicus).
YX^\d:\\x%\, Palestine, 127, 130.
Elpidius, Roman presbyter, no, III,
273.
Emperors not to interfere with the
Church, 286, 289, 299 ; deified
by the Senate, 9.
Envy, none in the Creator, 26 (see
God).
Ephraim, Meletian bishop, 137.
Epicritian players, 300.
Epictetus of Centumcellas, 226, 298.
Epictetus of Corinth, letter to, 570.
Epicureans, 36.
Eros, 8.
Esaias, Egypt, 127.
Esdras (3 and 4), apocryphal, 552.
'Essence' of God, 165; meaning
of, 469.
Essence and accident, 327.
Esther not canonical, 552.
Eternity may belong to creatures,
409.
Ethiopians, 16, 64 (see Auxumis).
Eucarpus, '148, *554.
Eucarpus, *I26, 148, *5S4.
Eucharist, Ixxix., 102, cf. 579 ; not
celebrated on week-days, 106 ;
offered by Presbyters only, 106 ;
profaned by heathen, 116; a
partaking of the Word, 519,
525 ; supersedes the Passover,
517. 520, 521, 524; unworthy
reception of, 519, 522 sq., 524.
Eucissus, *I48, *5S4.
Eudsemonf, Egypt, \2.1 ; of Lycop-
olis, 548.
Eudasmon, Meletian bishop, 132,
137, 517-
Eudsemonis, virgin, 505.
Eudoxius, 226, 271, 451, 456, 462,
470, 471. 490, 497, 498, 567-
Eugenius, *I26, 148, *554.
Eugenius, *I48, *554.
Eugenius, magister officiorum, 239.
Euhemerism, 9, 12, 13.
Eulogius, see Geloeus.
Eulof;iust, Gaul, 127.
Eulogius, bishop, 297,
Eulogus (or Eulogius), *I26, 148,
*5S4-
Eumenes, deacon, 71.
Eunomius, 498.
Eunuchs at Court, 283, 569.
Euphranor, 1 79 sqq., 1 86.
Euphrates of Cologne, *I47, 148,
276, 277.
Euphration of Balanea, 256, 271,
459-
Eupsychius, Cappad. bishop, 227,
581.
Europa, 10.
Eusebians, xxxiv.
Eusebius of Csesarea, xviii., xxvii.,
73 sqq., 104, 125, 141, 146, 456,
470, 492 ; at Nicaea, 152 ; Arian
language of, 459 ; Arianism of,
436 ; theology of, 75, notes.
Eusebius, consul, 504, 544.
Eusebius, Flavius, consul, 454, 497,
505.
Eusebius, eunuch, 282 sq. , 569.
Eusebius, a Decurion, 130.
Eusebiust, Gaul, 127.
Eusebiust, Palestine, 127, 130.
Eusebius, presbyter, 71.
Eusebius of Nicomedia, xvi., 68, 69,
70. 73- 87, 93. 95, 96, loi, 103,
105, 113, 114, 132, 232, 233,
235. 239, 271, 273, 274, 276,
288, 294, 319, 361, 452, 458,
460, 470, 474, 497, 537, 565;
quoted, 328, 459 ; translated
from Berytus, 103 ; at Nicaea,
152 ; subscribed at Nicaea, 153 ;
' deposed ' after Nicaea, xx., 460 ;
leader of Arians, 131 ; plots of,
140, 141 ; deputation from Tyre
to CP., 146 ; his party write to
Julius, III; translated to CP.,
272 ; influence of, 226 ; death
of, 1 19 ; at Sardica, party of, 555.
Eusebius of Seleucia, or of Sebaste,
456.
Eusebius of Vercellae, 248, 256, 281,
287, 299, 481, 483, 486; his
memorandum, 486.
Eustathius of Antioch, xxxvii., 73,
227, 256, 271 ; on Council of
Nicaea, xix.
Eustathius, presbyter of Sardica,
275-
Eustathius of Sebaste, 226, 271, 498.
Eustolion, virgin, 264.
Eustorgius, Italian bishop, 227.
Eutasius, *I48.
Eutherius, *I26, 148.
Eutropia, sister of Constantine, 240.
Eutropius, bishop of Adrianople,
256, 271.
Eutropius, Roman presbyter, 284,
Eutyches, deacon of Athan., 561.
Eutychius, martyred, 292.
Eutychius of Eleutheropolis, 456.
Eutychius, *I26, 148, *554.
Eutychus, *I27, 148.
Euzoius, Arian deacon, 70 ; ' Chana-
naean,' 297 ; made bishop at
Antioch, 467, 497, 498, 567, 569,
Evagorast, Egypt, 127.
Evagrius of Antioch, 189 ; his trans-
lation of Vit. Ant. 195.
Evagrius, officer, 242.
Evagrius of Milylene, 455, 456.
Evil, non-existent, 6, 7, 38.
Excommunication, 126.
Exegesis, principles of, (see Scrip,
ture.)
Exodus, the, typical of the Christian
life, 515, 519-
Exucontians, Arians called, 467.
' Ezra ' includes Nehemiah, 552.
Facundinust, Italy, 127.
Facundus, consul, 503.
Faith and Godliness allied, 536.
Faithful, meaning of, 351.
Fasting, at once penitential and
disciplinary, 508 ; suspended on
Saturday and Sunday, 523 ;
fasts to be kept with holy lile,
507, 50S ; and feasts, a source of
spiritual strength, 516, 539.
Father, God, the only real, 319;
'Father' expresses essence of
God, 165 ; the Scriptural title
of God, 326 ; Father, the,
known through the Word, 42 ;
all-Fatherhood of God, based on
adoption, 380, 381.
Faustinust, Italy, 127.
Fauslinus, oilicer, 291, 292; prefect
of Egypt, 505.
Fear, sign of a demoniacal vision,
205.
Felicianus, consul, 503.
Felicissimus, duke of Egypt, 241,
289.
Felixf, Africa, 127.
Felixi, Africa, 127.
Felixt, Egypt; 127.
FeUxf, Italy, 127.
Felix of Rome, 298.
Festal Index discussed, 501.
Festal letters, their origin, 500; usual
date of, 501, 516.
Festal seasons should colour our
whole life, 517, 519.
598
II. GENERAL INDEX.
Festivals, how to be kept, 511 ; of
unbelievers, 539, 543, 545 ; of
the wicked, 511 ; spirit of the
Christian, 509, 513, 520, 543.
Fiat, why God did not restore man
by a, 60, 385.
Fidelius, Arian bishop, 456.
Fidentiusf, Africa, 127.
' First-born ' correlative with ' adop-
tion,' 381-383, 398 (see Christ).
Flacillus, bishop of Antioch, 142.
Flavian, pref of Egypt, 499, 505.
Flavianusf, Egypt, 127 ('Flavins,')
297.
Flesh, restored in Christ, 412 (see
Man).
Flight in persecution not cowardly,
261.
Florentius, *I26, 148, *554.
Florentius, count, 277.
Florentius, prefect of Egypt, 512.
Florentius, consul, 497, 498, 505.
Fortunatian (' Fortunatius '), *I27,
148, 239, 248.
Fortunatianusf, Egypt, 127.
Fortunatiusf, Egypt, 127.
Food of the good and of the wicked,
525-
Fountain, the Father a, 317; of
Wisdom, God the, 158, 160.
Free-will, virtue depends on, 201
(see Man, Will).
Fronto, an official, 211.
Frumentius, xlviii., 249, 251,
Furniture of the Church, 94.
Fevvrjixa, 164, note 2.
revvqats, the Divine, 366, 463, 314,
note 8, 315 J^., 343 j^^?.; simple,
231 (see Son, Generatioft^.
Tevv7)Ths and yivrtrAs, 162, note 3,
163; distinguished, 339, 475,
note.
V€V7)r6s and ayevriTos, I49, 155 s^c^.
Gabianus, count, ill.
Gaius, deacon, 71 : P. of Alxa., 139.
Gaiusf, Egypt, 127, 142.
Gaius, deacon, 72 ; deacon of
Mareotis, 134; presbyter, 140;
\Egypt, 127 (?); cf. 257, 297,
483, 486.
Gaius, Arian deacon, 70.
Gains, Arian bishop, 453, 454, 455,
570.
Gallicianus, consul, 503, 510.
Gallus, Csesar, 298 ; change of name,
and consulate of, 504 ; consulate
of, 497.
Ganymede, 10.
Gaul, bishops of, 127.
GauJentius, court officer, 132.
Gaudentius, *i26, 148, *554.
Geloeus Hieracammon, 517.
Generation, the divine, 156; gener-
ation of the Son, 84; generation
and creation distinct, 158' (see
VivvT]tTis, Son').
George of Cappadocia, 227, 288 (bis),
298, 470, 497, 505, 561, 568;
nominated Bishop of Alxa., 250,
251 ; (chronolocjy) lii., 236 sq. ;
precautions before his arrival,
290 ; arrives at Alex., 257, 298 ;
at Seleucia, 456 ; murder of»
498 ; Gregory and George, con-
fusion of, xliii., note 5, 91, 274,
note 4.
George, Catholic Egyptian bishop,
483-
George of Laodicea, xxxiv., Iv., 104,
119, 123, 125, 126, 226, 255,
264, 271, 275, 279, 497; quoted,
459 ; deposed from Alex, clergy,
459 ; ' worst of the Arians,' 555,
556.
Gerasiust, Cyprus, 127.
Gerontius, *I26, 148, *554.
Gerontius, prefect of Egypt, 497,
498, 505.
Germanust, Palestine, 127, 130.
Germanust, Palestine, 127, 130.
Germinius, 226, 298, 451, 452, 454,
455. 466.
Giants, 365.
Gnostic tenets, 162, 163.
God, of Israel, worshipped by us,
58 ; God, Scripture doctrine of,
28 ; Christian idea of, xxix. ;
proof of His existence, 37 ; how
known to man, 42 ; knowledge
of, 43 ; known to the soul, if
free from sin, 20, 22 ; perceived
by the mind, 5 ; known by His
works, 22 ; from Creation, 18,
22, 42, 43, 44 ; by harmony of
Creation, 23, 27 ; God and
nature, 88 (see hnmafience).
God incorporeal, 16, 36, 42 ;
'beyond all essence,' or 'exis-
tence ' {ohaia), 5, 22, 25 ; not
of composite nature, 231 ; not
compound, 433 ; simplicity of,
18 ; alone self-existent, 157 (see
Divine Existence) ; God, attri-
butes in, 89, 368 ; unity of, 24,
25> 395. 397 ; simply One, though
in Three, 402 ; unchangeable,
353' 438 sq.; omnipresent, 406 ;
God, Will and Nature in, 349 ;
eternally Father, 182, 184; eter-
nally Father, not Creator, 323
(see Father) ; His ' right hand, '
341 sq. ; not jealous, 37, 363 ;
His goodness, cause of Creation,
37 ; He alone creates, 157 ; not
a mechanic, 37, 321, 359; creates
without material, 320, 359 ;
creates immediately, 154 sq.,
362 ; never SA.070S, 321, 365,
423, 434 (see Logos) ; delays of,
385 ; Mis goodness cause of In-
carnation, 36, 39 ; ' God only-
begotten ' (the Son), 26, 457,
&c. ; contemplation of God sus-
tains life, 508 ; how we may
imitate Him, 404 sq. ; our
Father by adoption and grace,
380, sq. ; dwells in us through
Christ, 331 ; requires of us His
own gifts, 518, 521.
Gods of the heathen, 353 ; immo-
ralites of, 10, il, 17 ; are mere
men, 44, 61, 65 ; are demons,
44, 61 sq., 206.
Gorgonius, chief-constable, 293, 302.
Goths, 64.
Grace, 38, 340, 341, 513, 518, 521 ;
needed by all, 370 ; security of,
407, 415-
Gratian, Consulates of, 499, 505»
506.
Gratitude, Christian, 513, 515, 518,
520.
Gratust, Africa, *I27, 147, 148.
Gregoras, D. of Mareotis, 140.
Gregoiy of Cappadocia, Arian bishop
of Alexandria, 93, 126,273-275,
288, 298, 494, 496, 503, 504,
554. 556 ; nominated bishop of
Alxa., 115, 121, 123; his arrival
marked by outrages, 1 16; vio-
lence of, 93 sqq. ; death of,
277 ; illness and death of, 504.
Hadrian, 9.
Hand of God, 387 ; the Word, 155 j
Christ the, 161.
Harmony, in music, 24.
Harpocrationt, Egypt, 127, 142.
Harpocration, Meletian bishop, 137.
Heathen excluded from Eucharist,
109 ; heathen outrages in
Churches, 94.
Hebrew Alphabet, 552,
Hebrews, Epistle to, S. Paul's, 37,
161, 552.
Hector, 13.
Hecuba, 13.
Helianus, 148, *554 (see Aelianus).
Helias, Meletian monk, 135.
Heliasf, Egypt, 127.
Heliast, Egypt, 127.
Heliasf, Egypt, ^ 127.
Hell, fear of, 197, 201.
Helladius, Arian deacon, 70.
Hellanicus of Tripolis, 271.
Hehodorus, *I27, 148.
Heliodorus, Arian of Libya, 498.
Hemerius, Flavius, 145.
Hephsestion, Meletian deacon, 137.
Hephaestus, 9, 10, 13, 216.
Hephaestus, D. of Mareotis, 140
Hera, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 216.
Heraclammonf, Egypt, 127, 142.
Heracles, 10, 11, 63.
Heracles, presb., 72.
Heraclianusf, Italy, 127-
Heraclides, Meletian bishop, 134,
137-
Heraclidesf, Egypt, 127, 142, 297.
Heraclidesf, Egypt, 127, 142.
Heraclius, presbyter of Mareotis,
134, 140.
Heracliust, Egypt, 127, 539.
Heracliusf, Italy, 127.
Heraclius, count, sent to Alxa., 288 ;
arrives at Alxa. , 290, 292, 294,
497-
Heremius of Thessalonica, 248.
Herennianusf, Africa, 127.
Herennius, deacon of Lucifer, 486.
Heresiarchs, 307.
Heretics 425, 547, 575 ; liow to be
met, 580 ; prayer %\ ith them
forbidden, 564 ; festivals of, 518,
521 ; their baptisms void, 371 ;
reject traditional teaching, 51 1 ;
named after their founders, 307 ;
heretical books, 551.
Hermaeon, Meletian bishop, 137.
II. GENERAL INDEX.
599
Hermaeon, bishop of Tanis, 483,
486.
Hermaphrodites, 15.
Hennas quoted, 37, 153, 162, 491 ;
quoted with hesitation, 533 ;
not in the Canon, 162, 552.
Hermes, 8, 9, 10.
Hermes, bishop, 257, 297.
Hermetaries, racks called, 253.
Hermiasf, Egypt, 127.
Hermias, citizen, 292.
Herminus, bp. of Maximianopolis,
539-
Herniogenes, *I27, 148, *554.
Hermogenes, count, 497.
Hermon, Egyptian bishop, 487.
Heroes, 44, 61.
Heron f, Egypt, 127.
Hesperiot, Africa, 127.
Hesperus t, Africa, 127.
Hesychius, count, 119, 274.
Hesychius, deacon, 112, II3, 1 14.
Hieracas, mystic, 458.
Hieracas, presbyter, 578 (see Hie-
rax ?)
Hieracyst, Egypt, 127.
Hierapolis in the East, 505.
Hierax, presb. of Alexandria, 560.
Hierax, presbyter, 257, 297-
Hierax, bp. of E. Garyathis, 539.
Hierax, deacon, 72 ; P. of Mareotis,
140.
Hilarianus, consul, 503, 515.
Hilarius, Roman deacon, 284,
Hilarius, Arian bishop, 498.
Hilarius, notary, 247, 497, 498, 499;
comes to Alxa., 288, 301.
Hippocentaur, 15.
Hippolytus, xxiv.
Histona Acephala, 485, sqq. ; 496.
Holiness, needed for study of Scrip-
tures, 67.
Holy Spirit, controversy about, 567,
579, 580 n.
Homer, 14; quoted, 295, 445.
Homoeanism, 466, 470.
Honjoiision, 75) ^IJ-
Honoratust, Africa, 127.
Horus, 8, 9.
Hosius, xvi., 73, 139, 140, 227, 239,
248,258,295; framedNicenefor-
mula, 285 ; atSardica, 274, 275,
285 ; * leading person at Sardica,
124, 126; detained at Sirniium,
287 ; worthy of his name, 286 ;
praises of, 256 ; letter to Con-
stantius, 285-286, 288 ; age of,
287 ; lapse of, 146, 256, 287 ;
death of, 287.
Humanity of Christ a creature, 85
(see Incarnation).
Hyginus, prefect of Egypt, 503,
515-
Hymenseus, *I27, 148.
Hypatianus, 498 (see Eustathius).
Hypatius, Fl., consul, 454, 497, 505.
Hypatius of Nicaea, 498.
Hyperneris, *554.
Hypostasis, xxxii., 84, 90, 167 ; (sub-
sistence), 467, 470 ; and oixria,
48a sqq. ; and oxiala. identified,
490 ; discussed by Newman, 77
sqq. ; God is one, 433 ; one or
three? 90, 182, note 5,
Hypostatic union, 410, 411, 413,
419.
Hyrcania, 64.
lamblichus, 2, 14, notes.
Idolatry, 42, varieties of, 16, 62 ; phi-
fosophic defence of, 14: origin
of in sin, 5, 8 ; immorality of,
10, II, 17 J illogical, 14 sq.\
condemned in Scripture, 27 ;
destroyed by Christ, 66.
Idols, 64.
Ignatius of Antioch, xxii. ; quoted,
475-
Ignorance of the End, why profitable,
420 sq.
Ilius (see Elias).
Image of God, 22, 26, 42, 43, 160,
161, 163 note 9, 318, 319, 327,
330, 335. 337. 349. 37i. 375.
393. 396, 399. 470 (see Christ,
Word, &c.).
Image- worship, dishonours art, II.
Images, perishable, 16 ; serve as
letters for men, 14, 15.
Immanence of Word in Nature, 45,
59 (see God).
Immortality, 21, yisq.
Incarnation, the, 40 ; purpose of, 40,
59, 531. 576; twofold purpose
of, 43, 45, 378; threefold pur-
pose, 40 ; for our salvation, 38 ;
needed to restore us, 376, 385,
386 ; solely for man's need, 377,
379 ; remedy against Death, 40;
bestows Incorruption, 60, 61 ;
remedy for Sin, 384, 386, 411 ;
source of grace, 405 sq., 412 ;
ransom of all creation, 577 ; an
Economy, 87 ; a condescension,
329 ; a condescension to sense,
44. 59 -f^- ; men taught by, 44 ;
completes God's self-witness,
44 ; deceived Satan, 376 ; why
deferred, 385 ; why not lu
Adam's time, 323 ; Incarnation
philosophically conceivable, 58
sq. ; did not limit the Word, 45,
60 ; human actions of the Incar-
nate, 45, 46.
Incarnation, theology of, 374, 446,
485. 570-574, 576.
Indians, 16, 17, 62, 63, 489.
Ingenius, presb., 72, 140.
Innocent (of Cappadocia ?), 580.
Interpretation, right method of, 177
(see Scriplrire).
Inventions ascribed to gods, 13.
Irenseus, *I26, 148, *554.
Irenaeus, Arian deacon, 69.
Irenffius, Arian, 297.
Irenaeus, presb. of Alxa., 279.
Irenasus, Egyptian bishop, 142.
Irenaeus, Meletian presbyter, 137.
Irenaeus, saint, xxiv.
Irene, village of, 145.
Irenicusf, Cyprus, 127.
Isaac of Letopolis, Meletian, 134,
137-
Isaac of Cleopatris, Meletian bishop,
134. 137-
Isact, Egypt, 127 ; (Isaac), 548.
Ischyrammonf, Egypt, 127.
Ischyras, xvii., xxxviii., 107, 114,
115, 120, 125, 133, 138, 139,
140, 143, 145; confession of,
108; recants, 133; made a
bishop, 120, 122, 144.
Ischyras, Egyptian bishop, 142.
Ischyrion, Egypt, bishop, 142.
Isidorus, bp. of Xois, 548.
Ision, an orphan, 140.
Ision, Meletian bishop, 132, 137,517.
Isis, 8, 9, 216.
Israel, history of, 55.
Issachar, an example of patience,
540 sq.
Italicianus, pref of Egypt, 505.
Italy, bishops of, 127.
Jacobus, Egyptian bishop, 142, 548.
Jacobus of Nisibis, 227.
Januarius, *i26, 148, *554.
Januarius, consul, 503.
Jeremiah, epistle of, canonical, 552.
Jerusalem, 579; council (in 335),
143 5^., 460; no longer exists, 57.
Jessesf, Gaul, 127.
Jewish dispensation provisional only,
.509-
Jewish vintners, 232, 413, &c. (see
Isa. i. 22).
Jews, guilt 6f the, 529, 530, 534 ;
Peter's argument with, 356 ;
present state of, 521, 534 sq.^
545 i refuted, 54 sqq.
John, *I48.
John and Antiochus, letter to, 579.
John Arcaph, 109, 134, 135, 137,
190 (see Arcaph).
Jonas, *I27, 148.
Josephf, Italy, 127.
Jovian, accession of, 498, 505; al-
leged prophecy about, 487 ;
repulses Arians, 568 ; letters
from and to him, 567 ; death
of, 499 ; consulate of, 498, 505.
Jovinus, consul, 499, 505.
Joy, sign of a celestial vision, 206.
Judgment, the last, 30, 66.
Judith not canonical, 552.
Julian, 568 ; consulates of, 497, 498,
504, 505 ; accession of, 497, 505 ;
measures of, 498, 505 ; death of,
498, 505 ; rumours about his
death, 487.
Julianus, *I27, 148, *554.
Julianus, *I48, *554 [not 127).
lulius Constantius, consul, 140, 503,
523.
Julius, Arian deacon, 70, 297.
Juliust, Egypt, 127.
Julius, bishop of Rome, loi, 120,
122, 123, 130, 227, 272, 273,
278 ; his presbyters detained in
the East, 113; letter to Euse-
bius, &c., no sqq.; *signs at
Sardica by deputies, 126, 148 ;
second letter of, 128.
Jupiter Latiarius, I7-
Just claims of (jod, 39, 40.
Justin Martyr, xxiii.
justinianusf, Gaul, 127.
Justusf, Africa, 127.
Justus, deacon, 72 ; presb. of Mare-
otis, 134.
Justus, consul, 503.
6oo
II. GENERAL INDEX.
KavaKiov, 127, note.
Karterius of Antaradus, 486 (see
Carferms).
Kymatius, bishop of Paltus, 256,
271, 483, 486.
Laodicea, 298, 212 (?)
Law, Jewish, 42 ; given by angels,
340, 341 ; purpose of, 546 ; Law
and Prophets, for all the world,
43-
Law in nature, a proof of God, 24.
Leda, 10.
Lent, 94 ; kept laxly in Egypt, 538 ;
necessary preparation for Easter,
523, 548 ; notice of it omitted,
516, 519, 543.
Leo, deacon, 554.
Leonidest, Egypt, 127.
Leontius of Antioch, 226, 264, 271,
279, 471 ; made bishop of
Antioch, 277 ; date of his death,
254 sq.
Leontius of Csesarea Capp., 227.
I^eontius of Tripolis, 455, 456.
Leontius, consul, 504.
Leto, 10.
Leviticus, law of, 545.
Libert, Africa, 127.
Liberius, 227, 248, 256, 258, 282,
sqq., 287 ; resists Constantius,
283 ; banished, and falls, 284 ;
lapse of, 146.
Liburniusf, Egypt, 127.
Libya, 62, 251 (see Egyptian Sees,
&c.) ; Libyans, 16, 17.
Light and radiance, simile of, 158,
165 (note 4), 164, 166, 182 (see
Simile).
Likeness if real is essential, 470.
Limenius, consul, 497, 504.
Liodorus (see Diodorus).
Loaves of widows, &c., (see''ApToO-
Logos (see Word) ; God never with-
out, 315, 316, 320, 321, 349;
\6yos irpopopiKos, 84.
Lollianus, consul, 497, 504.
Longianus of Armenia, 227.
Longinus, prefect of Egypt, 504,
539, 540.
Longus, presbjrter, 71, 139.
Lordship of Christ as Man, 355 (see
C/irist).
Lucian the Martyr, xv., xxviii. ;
alleged creed of, 461.
Lucifer of Calaris, 248, 256, 281,
284, 287, 299, 481, 483, 486 ;
letters of Ath. to, 561 ; writings
of, 562 ; account of him, 561,
note.
Lucillus, i.e. Lucius of Verona,
*I26, 148, 239, »554.
Lucius of Adrianople, *I27, 148,
256, *554-
Lucius, D. of Mareotis, 140.
Lucius, Egyptian bishop, 483.
Lucius, Meletian bishop, 137,
Lucius, Arian deacon, 70; Arian
bishop of Alxa., 498, 499, 505,
568, 569.
Luke, a witness against human tradi-
tions, 512.
Lupicinus, consul, 499, 505.
Lupus of Cilicia, 227.
Lycia, 62.
Lycurgus, 14.
Lycus, a stream in Egypt, 212.
Movii, posting-station, 115, note, 274.
Mof^, monastery, 135, note.
Macarius addressed by Athan., 4,
36, note.
Macarius, deacon, 71, 134.
Macarius, deacon, 71 ; presbyter of
Alxa., 107, 109, 114, 115, 120,
122, 125, 132, 133, 137, 138,
238, 271, 565 ; accused by Ischy-
ras, 106.
Macarius, Egyptian bishop, 142,483.
Macarius, presbyter, 112, 1 13.
Macarius, Meletian presbyter, 137.
Macarius of Jerusalem, 227.
Macedonius, *I26, 148, *554.
Macedoniusf, Egypt, 127.
Macedoniusf, Cyprus, 127.
Macedonius, bishop of Mopsuestia,
107, 1 14, 462.
Macedonius of CP., 272, 497, 498 ;
Macedonian heresy, 497.
Maccabees, apocryphal, 552.
Macrinus, Palestinian bishop, 130.
Macrostich (creed), 462.
Maffei, Scipio, 495.
Magic, 42, 53, 61, 62, 63, 65, 216.
Magician, Christ not a, 63.
Magistrates support Arians, 93, 96,
273, 290 sq.; support Athana-
sius, 103.
Magnentius, 240, 246, 280,298, 497,
504; sends officers to Athana-
sius, 241.
Magninianus, pref. of Egypt, 503,
510.
Magnus of Themisa, 456.
Maia, 10.
Maid, the (goddess), 9.
Mamertinus, consul, 498, 505.
Man, defined, 13 ; original state of,
S; created in grace, 38, 154;
created perfect, 384 ; in what
sense, 385 ; essentially perish-
able and mortal, 37, 38 ; by
nature ignorant of God, 42 ; not
by nature rational, 42 ; whence
rational, 37 ; rational because
in God's image, 510 ; Men par-
takers of the Word, 492.
Man as mortal has no merit, 435 ;
alone sinful in creation, 59 ;
Men learn best from men, 42 ;
Man could not redeem, 43, 44 ;
many have lived like God, 399;
knows God by grace, 42 ; de-
livered in Christ, 412 ; restored
in Christ, 446, 386 ; deified in
Christ, 65, 159, 329,330; deifi-
cation of, 572, 576, 578 sqq.
Man's redeemed state higher than
that of Adam, 385 (see Deifi-
cation, Redemption).
Manasses, prayer of, Apocryphal,
552-
Manes and Manichees, 214, 224,
231, 293, 294, 297, 307, 310,
369 sq., 371, 402, 413, 421,
456, 458, 468, 484, 485.
Manichseism, 572, 575, 579,
Manninusf, Africa, 127.
" Marcellinus," *I27, 148.
MarcellusofAncyra(seei'l/arf^///-'?«x),
I48,*554, 112, 256; ageof,27i;
condemned at Antioch, 462, 463;
received at Rome, 271, xliv. ;
confession of faith at Rome, I16;
at Sardica, 271 ; pronounced
orthodox at Sardica, 125, 126;
theology of, xxxvi., 125, 431-
447 ; inconsistency of, 436 ; '
adopts Stoic ideas, 437, 438 ;
his doctrine of ' dilatation,' 437
sq., 441, 443. ; cf. Ixii.
Marcellinus, D. of Alxa., 139.
Marcellinus, consul, 462, 504, 539.
Marcion, 224, 307, 359, 402, 478,
575-
Marcus, Arian, 297.
Marcus of Arelhusa, 462.
Marcus, deacon, 71.
Marcus, deacon, 72.
Marcus, deacon, 72 ; P. of Mareotis,
140.
Marcus, two bishops called, 257,
297, 483, 486.
Marcus, *I27, 148, *554.
Mareotis, the, 69, 108, note, 133,
139, 144, 554; villages of, 134,
cf. 137 ; list of clergy of (in 322),
72; presbyters of (in 332), 134;
list of clergy (in 335), 140;
affair of Ischyras, 106.
Mareotic Commission, xl., 107 sq.,
112, 114, 115, 120, 138, 140,
143, 275-
Marianusf, Africa, 127.
Marinusf, Africa, 127.
Maris, bishop of Chalcedon, 107,
114, 140, 141, 458, 462.
Marriage, 529, 557.
Martinianus, officer, 209.
Martinianus, notary, 466.
Martinust, Gaul, 127.
Martyrius, deacon, 112, II3, II4,
(?) bishop, 462.
Martyrius, *I26, 148, *554.
Martyrius, *I48, *554.
Martyrdom, what, 234.
Martyrs, 51, 52, 62, 208 sq., 217,
424.
Mary, the Virgin, 571, 572, 573,
579 (see Virgin).
Masis, bp. of Latopolis, 548.
Materialism, opinion of some here-
tics, 20.
Matter not coeval with God, 37.
Maurus, deacon, 72, 140.
Maximian, Emperor, 284, 285 ; per-
secution of, 294.
Maximianus (see Maximinus).
Maximilla, 452.
Maximin, persecution of, 208.
Maximinusf of Treveri, 127, 147,
148, 227, 239, *5S4.
Maximus, *I27, 148.
Maximus (see Maximimcs).
Maximus, Gallic bishop, 241, \\7.1,
Maximus of Nicsea, pref. of Egypt,
246, 247, 301, 302, 504.
Maximus of Rapheotis, pref. of
Egypt, 505-
Maximus of Jerusalem t, 127, 130.
II. GENERAL INDEX.
60 1
Maximus, deacon of Antioch, 486.
Maximus, reader of Alexandria,
560.
Maximus, presbyter, 554.
Maximus, philosopher, letter to,
578.
Maximus of Tyre, 14 (note 8).
Meditation, 535, 536.
Megasiust, Africa, 127.
Melas, Meletian bishop, 137.
Meletian schism, date of, 234.
Meletian bishops, list of, 137.
Meletian monks, 135.
Meletians, 105, 106, 107, 109, no,
115, 125, 214, 219, 299, 300,
307, 517, 538; reconciled after
Nicaea, 137 ; allied with Arians,
531 ; coalesced with Arians,
234 ; become Arians, 300 ; like
chameleons, 300.
Meletius, schism of, xv., 131, 137.
Meletius of Antioch, Ivii., Ixi. j^.,497.
Meletius of Pontus, 227.
Meliphthongus, D. of Mareotis,
140.
Menas, Arian deacon, 70.
Menas, Egyptian bishop, 483, 486.
Mendidium, district in Alexandria,
506.
Menophantus of Ephesus, 119, 123,
125, 126, 275, 555, 556.
Mercuriusf, Gaul, 127.
Metianust, Gaul, iz"].
Methodius, xxvii.
Metopas, D. of Mareotis, 140.
Milan, 298; council (in 347), 131 ;
council (in 355), xlix., 280, 299.
Milton, theology of, 87.
Minervalist, Africa, 127.
Miracles, 291 ; in the church, 560 ;
how wrought, 550 ; wrought by
God, not by saints, 206 ; not to
be over-rated, 206.
Mizoniusf, Africa, 127 ; (Muzonius)
Ivi.
Modeslus, ' vicar, ' 498 ; consul, 499,
506.
Monarchia, the divine, 167, 433,
463, 464 ; cf xxiii. sqq.
Monasteries, 297 ; presbyters in,
135. 560.
Monastic Societies, 557 ; monastic
scruples and temptations, 556.
Monasticism, xlviii., 193; origin In
Egypt, 196 ; growth of in An-
tony's time, 200, 208.
Monks (in 339), 94; 1 16, 529, 559,
569 ; hermits, 561 ; not always
celibate, 560 ; elected to bishop-
rics, 559 ; regard active life as
perilous to the soul, 560 ; Mele-
tian, 135 ; outside Egypt, 195.
Montanists, 371, 419, 452, 456;
Montanus, 452 (see Cataphry-
gians).
Montanus, officer, comes to Alxa.,
245> 497. 504-
Months, Egyptian names of, 501.
Moses, 29, 54.
Moses, Meletian bishop, 137.
Moses, Egyptian bishop, 142.
Mosinius (see Musonius).
Mother of the gods, 17.
Mourners, consolation for, 569.
Muist, Egypt, 127, 142, 257, 297;
bishop in Thebais, 560.
Muitus (see Muis).
Muius, bishop (see Muis).
Musi'us, presbyter, 131.
-Musaeust, Egypt, 127.
MusKus, *I27, 148.
Musonianus, count, 119, 274.
Musonius, *I27, 148, *554.
Naissus, Athan. at, 239.
Name of God (the Son), 329.
Narcissus of Neronias, 119, 123,
125, 126, 140, 141, 226, 255,
264, 275, 279, 458, 462, 497,
555. 556-
Nature of man needs restoration, 40;
nature and will in God, 349 ;
<|)uo-iy and ovata, 478.
Nature, worship of, 18, 19 ; the book
or writing of God, 22 ; inter-
dependence of, 18 (see Creation).
Nehemiah, counted as 2nd of Ezra,
552.
Nemesinus, an official, 569.
Nemesionf, Egypt, 127, 539.
Nemesion, bishop of Sais, 548.
Nemesius, presbyter, 71.
Neoplatonism, 33.
Nepotianus, consul, 503.
Nessusf, Africa, iz"].
Nestor, 13.
Nfestorius, prefect of Egypt, 130,
219, 277, 289, 504, 544, 548.
Nevitta, consul, 498, 505.
' New River ' at Alexandria, 499,
505-
Nicasiusf, Gaul, 127.
Nicaea, bishops of, 104 ; intended
council there (in 359), 451 ;
Nicaea, council of, xvii. sqq.,
73-76, III, 112, 113, 116, 152,
225, 229, 232, 452, 567, 568,
57O) 579 > reason of the council,
490 ; numbers at, 112, 294, 295,
152; 'three hundred,' 473;
' three hundred and eighteen,'
489 ; order of events in the
council, XX. note, 73 ; history
of the proceedings 162, 491 ;
conduct of the Arians, 163 ;
this council ' Ecumenical,' 169
(see Council), 310, &c. ; gen-
eral reception of its creed,
568 ; the council universally ac-
cepted, 489 ; its authority, 282 ;
its creed, 75, 568 ; its creed
to be maintained, 234 ; finality
of its creed, 484 ; this creed
sufficient, 453, 454 ; Nicene
formula alone overthrows Arian-
ism, 474 ; scriptural in sense,
474 ; meaning of the definition,
469 ; Nicene doctrine incompre-
hensible, 366, note ; Nicene
Fathers, ' simplicity ' of, 454,
467.
Niconiedla, 69, 298 ; bishops of, 104.
Nicon, Egyptian bishop, 142, 539.
Nigrianus, consul, 504.
Nike, proceedings at (in Thrace),
490, cf. 467, 479.
Nilammont, Egypt, 127, 257, 297,
548.
Nilammon, bishop of S)eiie, 548.
Nilaras, presbyter, 7 1, 139.
Nile flood, 205, 212.
Nilon, deacon, 71.
Nilusf, Eg^pt, 127.
Nitria, 212, 487.
Nonnust, Egyptian bishop, 142, 539.
Norbanust, Cyprus, 127.
Notaries, 246, note.
Novatians, 307.
Novatus {i.e. Novatian) 113, cf. xxiv.
Numediusf, Italy, 127.
Nunechiust, Cyprus, 127.
OiKovofila, 178, note 4; (ofthelncar- ,
nation), 87 (see Economy).
'OfjLola oixria adopted, 318.
''O/xotov, 163, note 9, 568 ; used by
Athanasius, 31 1.
"Ojuojos Kara irdvra, 463 J adopted,
329, 357-.
'Ofioovaiov, xix., xxx. sqq., 163, 165,
174, 183, 184; Gnostic, 339
(note i) ; why rejected at An-
tioch, xxxi., 473 sq. ; explained,
472 ; Dionys. Alex, upon, 473 ;
why adopted at Nicoea, 491 ;
why objected to, 468 ; avoided
in Orat. i.-iii., 340; used once
in Orat. i.-iii., 311 ; involved
in rejection of Arianism, 493;
symbol of divine unity, 436.
Ohvia, 373, note, 490 ; set aside in
Dated Creed, 454 ; Oixria, what,
xxxi., 163, note 7; Ouiri'o (na-
ture), 1 2; (essence), i8; (substance
or existence), 5 ; Ovaia, category
of, 433 ; Ov(T(a and (pvan, 478 ;
prior to terms predicated, 350 ;
idea of in theology, 477.
Oasis the, 251, 257, 297.
Oath, the word of a Christian
equivalent to, 241, 559.
Odysseus, 13.
Old Testament, twenty-two books of,
552 ; Old Testament doctrine
of the Son, 442, 444.
Olympias, 296.
Olympius, "hS, 256, 276, '554.
Olympius, deacon, 71, 134.
Olympius Palladius, governor of
Egypt, 506.
Olympus ' Ecdikius,' prefect of
Egypt, 498, 505-
Omphale, 11.
Optantiusf, Africa, 1 27.
Optatianust, Gaul, 127.
Optatus, consul, 503, 519.
Optatus, Egypti.m bishop, 142.
Oracles, 42, 61, 62, 66, 205, 216.
Ordination, 107 ; ordinations of
Gregory null, 275.
Origen, 2 ; quoted, 168 ; relation of
Athanasius to, 33 ; theology of,
xxiv. sq., 174; his use of ' hy-
postasis,'81.
Orion, presb., 72.
Oriont, Egypt, 127, 548.
Orsisius, letters to, 569.
Osiris, 8, 9. 216.
Outrages of Arians, 124 (see Arians,
Gregory, Gcor^^e) ; at Alxa.,
(Easter 356), 249,
602
11. GENERAL INDEX.
Uapdevdv ' convent,' 196,
XlapacTKevri, 94-
Uoiflv, senses of, 184.
npofioX-fi, 84 ; doctrine of, 458,
note 8.
TlpOKOTTTI, 421 Sg.
npoawnov, 177 (see Person, Hypo-
stasis).
riuKTia, volumes called, 239.
Pabau (Tabenne), Monastery of,
564, note (see Tabenne).
Pacatianus, consul, 503, 515*
Pacatusf, Gaul, 127.
Pachomius, date of his death, xlviii.,
569, note.
Pachymes, Meletian bishop, 137.
Psederos of Heraclea, 227.
Palace, bishops housed in, 275.
Palamedes, 14.
Palestine, bishops of, 127, 130, 278,
538.
Palladius, *I26, 148, *5S4.
Palladius, civil officer, 138, 140.
Palladius, prefect of Egypt, 504.
Palladius, magister officiorum, 242,
247, 289.
Palladius, letter to, 580.
Pammon, ' abbat,' 487.
Pancratius of Pelusium, 456.
Panegyrics, nature of, 13.
Paninuthiust, Egypt, 12"], 142.
Pantagathusf, Africa, 127.
Paphnutius, monk, 21 1.
Paphiiutius, Meletian monk, 135.
Paphnutiust, Egypt, 127, 297, 483,
486, 548.
Paphnutiust, Egypt, 127, 142.
Paphnutiust, Egypt, 127.
Paphos, 8.
Paraclete in Old Testament, 445 (see
Spirit).
Parammon, Arian deacon, 69.
Paregorius, *I27, 148, *S54.
Parembola, suburb of Alexandria,
137, 555-
Parius, prefect of Egypt, 505.
Parnassius, pref. of Egypt, 505.
Participation, 29, 394, 402, 476,
477> 479 ; of God by the Word,
&c., 156 ; through the Son, 156,
166 ; of the Word, 329, 333 ;
Sonship by, 315, 316.
Paschasiust, Africa, 127.
Pasophiust, Egypt, 127.
Passover prefigured the Eucharist,
517 (see Eucharist).
Patalas, lawyer, 568.
Patavia, 239.
Patemus, prefect of Egypt, 503,
517-
Patricius, *I27, 148.
Patricius of Nicaea, 498,
Patriciust, Palestine, 127, 130.
Patripassianism, 84, 463 (see Sabel-
lians).
Patrophilus, Arian bp., 140, 141,
146, 226, 451, 455, 456, 458,
470.
Paul the Apostle, 532 sq. ; fourteen
epistles of, canonical, 552 ; cha-
racter of his epistles, 533 ; his
language about the Law, 473 ;
quotes heathen writers, 471.
Paul (' Catena'), liii., 497.
Paul of CP., 256, 272, 497.
Paul of Samosata, xxvii., 1 13, 156,
166, 224, 296, 355, 407, 421,
445, 446, 447, 462, 463, 473,
474, 484, 485, 579; followers
of, 371 ; doctrine of, 474.
Paul, Bishop of Tyre, 134.
Paul, deacon, 71, 134.
Paul, presb. of Alexandria, 71, 109,
121.
Paul, presb. of Alexandria, 498.
Paul, presb., 72.
Paul, Meletian, 135.
Pault, Egypt, 127.
Pault, Egypt, 127, 548.
Paul, bp. of Latopolis, 560
Pault, Gaul, 127.
Pault, Palestine, 127, 130. ■
Pault, Palestine, 127, 130.
Paulianust, Italy, 127.
Paulinus, consul, 503, 519.
Paulinus of Antioch, 484, 486 ;
Paulinians of Antioch, 497; me-
morandum of Paulinus, 486.
Paulinus, bishop of Treviri, 130,
227, 248, 256, 278, 281, 287,
299.
Paulinus of Tyre, 458.
Pecysius, Meletian, 135.
Peirgeus, lo.
Pelagius, reconciled Meletian bishop,
137, 142, 548.
Pelasgians, 16.
Pentecost, 509, 512, 515, 519, 523,
527, 532, 538. 541, 543, 548;
symbolism of, 517.
Pentecost (357) outrages of George,
257-
Perfection, degrees of, 529 ; counsels
of, 557-
Perichoresis, 393 sqq., notes, 402
(see ' Coinherence,'' Trinity).
Peroys, presbyter, 71.
Persecution, in Alexandria, 208 ; of
orthodox bishops, 124; Arian
worse than heathen, 95 ; right
conduct under, 157 sqq. ; bless-
ing under, 262 ; diffuses the
truth, 284.
Persecution wrong, 529 ; wicked,
257; ungodly, 295; devilish,
263, 281.
Persephone, 216.
Perseus, 10.
Perseverance, virtue of, 200, 20.1
(see Trials).
Persia, magi from, 56.
Persians, 16, 64.
Persian war (339-340), 113. 273;
(in 343), 275.
' Person' (in the Trinity), xxxvi. , 465,
466 (see Hypostasis, Up6auTroi').
Peter. Martyry of St. at Rome,
283.
Peter, deacon, 71, 134 ; presb. of
Alxa., 279; bishop of Alexan-
dria, 499.
Peter the Physician, presbyter, 497,
504.
Peter, P. of Mareotis, 140.
Peter, Meletian bishop, 137.
Peter, *I27, 148.
Petert, Palestine, 127, 130.
Peter, Egyptian bishop, 142, 146.
Peter I., bishop of Alexandria, 131,
137, 209, 235, 296, 299, 307,
Petronius of Tabenne, 569.
Phaeno, mines of, 292.
Phasileus, Meletian bishop, 137.
Phidias, sculptor, 22.
Philagrius, prefect of Egypt, 93, 107,
138, 139. 140, I43> 272, 273,
276, 289, 503, 504, 519, 523,
. 527, 532.
Phileas, presbyter, 497.
Philip, prefect of the East, 256, 272,
289 ; consul, 504, 548.
Philipt, Egypt, 127, 142.
Philot, Egypt, 127, 257, 297, 539.
Philo, bishop of Thebes, 539.
Philot, Egypt, 127.
Philogonius, bishop of Antioch, 227.
Philologius, *I27, 148.
Philosophers, 63, 64 ; opinions of
about the world, 469.
Philosophy, 61 sq., 62.
Philotast, Egypt, 127.
Philoxenus, Roman presbyter, no,
III, 126, 273, 554.
Philumenus, rebel, 132.
Phinees, Egyptian bishop, 142.
Phoebus of Polychalanda, 456.
Phoenicians, 14, 16, 17.
Photinus, xxxvi. ; (' Scotinus '), 463 ;
condemned at Sirmium, 464 ;
anathematised by Paulinus (in
362), 486 ; combated, 440 sq.,
443 ■f^?-
Photiust, Cyprus, 127.
Phrygians (see Montanists).
Pininuthes, Meletian bishop, 137.
Pinnes, Meletian presbyter, 135, 190.
Pistus, Arian presbyter, 69 ; Arian
bishop of Alexandria, xlii. sq.,
95, 110, 113.
Pistus, deacon, 71 ; P. of Alxa., 139.
Pistus, deacon of Mareotis, 134, 140.
Pistus, deacon of Mareotis, 140.
Pistus, Grecian bishop, 227.
Pistust, Egypt, 127, 142.
Pitybio, (see Patavia).
Placidus, consul, 504.
Plato, 2, 37 ; quoted, 6, 9, 21, 23,
26, 60.
Pleasure not our lot in this life,,
530.
Plenius, bishop, 257, 297.
Plurality of gods impossible, 25.
Plusian, Egyptian bishop, 136, 548.
Piutarchus, *I27, 148.
Plution, P. of Alxa., 139.
Plution, bishop of lower Apollinopo-
lis, 539-
Poets, 12, 13, 61.
Polemius, consul, 503, 527.
Polemius, count, 277.
Polybius, deacon, 71.
Polycratia of Laodicea, 212.
Polydeuces of Libya, 456.
Polynicus, D. of Mareotis, 140.
Poor, to be remembered, 204, 292,
293 ; care for insisted on, 510,
516, 553. 556.
Porphyrius, *I26, 148, *554.
Porphyry, 2.
Poseidon, 9, 10, 13, 216.
Potammon, Egyptian bishop, 104
note, 142, 273, 548.
II. GENERAL INDEX.
603
Power of God, Christ the, 161.
Prsetextatus, *I26, 148, *SS4-
Prayer, 6 ; must be to God exclu-
sively, 400.
Prediction compared with foresight,
205.
Prefects of Egypt, xc. s^.
Presbyters, alone can offer the Eu-
charist, 106 ; cannot ordain,
107 ; attend Episcopal visitation,
108.
Priests, heathen, 214.
Probation, necessity of, 530.
Probatius, eunuch, 569.
Probatiusf, //afy, 127.
Probinus, consul, 462, 504, 539.
Probus, consul, 506.
Proclianus, governor of Egypt, 505.
Proclus, consul, 503.
Prophecy not ecstatic, 419 ; prophe-
cies of Christ, 54. si^(/. ; of the
Cross, 55, 56; of Incarnation,
56.
Prophets, 42 ; the twelve, one book,
552-
Protasius, *I26, 148, 239, *S54.
Proterius, presbyter, 71.
Protogenes of Sardica, *I26, 148,
227, *554-
Proverbs, sense of, 372.
Providence, 5, 17, 26, 7.8, 29, 30, 36,
37, 44, 45, 46, 58, 105, 166,
201, 205, 207, 209, 213, 215,
219, 243, 258, 260, 261, 263,
264, 362, 366, 414, 451. 45^.
538. ' Providence ' in Athan-
asian writings, 192.
Psaest, A^7//, 127, 142, 297.
Psalmody, 263.
Psalms, authorship of, 262 ; titles
of, 442, 444.
Psanimathia, near Nicomedia, 132,
134.
Psenosirist, £^J'J>t, 1 27, 257, 297, 548.
Psychology of Athanasius, 20 (see
Athanasius).
Ptemencyrcis, monastery of, 135.
Ptolemy (Gnostic), 426.
Ptolemy of Thmuis, 456.
Ptollarion, deacon, 72, presb., 140.
Pythiodorus, philosopher, 498, 505.
Pythoness, the, 62.
Quintianus, bishop of Gaza, 126.
Quintust, Egypt, 127, 539.
Quotations from ' Agrapha,' 564.
Rational soul proved to exist, 21.
Reason in man, 37.
Recapitulation, doctrine of, 384, 385,
cf. 412.
Redemption, theology of, 378, 387 ;
need of, 60 ; need of, 330, 2,3 ' >
334, 381, 384, 385, (see Man,
Sin, Soteriology) ; work of the
Creator, 36, 41, 355, 356 ; neces-
sary on God's side, 39, 40 ;
must be by God, 335 ; impos-
sible except by God, 385 ;
impossible except through man,
386 ; nature of, 87, 88, 412,
576 ; threefold nature of, 40 ;
brings life, 40 ; from death and
corruption, 40, 41, 43; against
corruption, 40 ; destroys death,
49 ; bestows incorruption, 53,
60, 65, 425, 538 ; immortality,
384, 386 ; from sin and death,
576 ; from sin, 331, 334, 336;
fore-ordained, 389^^.; completes
creation, 392 ; surpasses crea-
tion, 385 (see Christ, Nature,
Corruption, Man, Restoration).
Repentance, 526 ; not adequate for
redemption, 39, 40.
Repetition (style of Ath.), 47, 391,
423, 430.
Restitutus, *I27, 148.
Restoration of man in Christ, 527
(see Deification, Hedemptiojt).
Resurrection of Christ, 47, 48,
52 ; unique, 64 ; why on third
day, 50.
Reverence, heretical, 323.
Rhea, 17.
Rhinus, P. of Alxa., 139.
Rogatianust, Africa, 127.
Romans, 17.
Rome, ancient synod of, 473 ; exiled
bishops there (in 339-40), 117 ;
council of (340), 100, 1 10,
274, 555 ; Synods there (in 363-
370), 489, 494, 570 ; Church of,
96, 175 ; Romans claim tradi-
tions from Peter, 118, 282, 504 ;
position of its bishop, no, note,
III, 114, 118, notes ; jurisdiction
of See of, 1 78, note 2 ; See of,
why to be honoured, 282.
Romanus, deacon, 7.
Romulust, Egypt, 127.
Romulus, consul, 504.
Rufinianus, letter to, 566 ; fragment
from a letter to, 567, note 7 ;
part of a letter from, 566, note.
Rufinus, catholicus of Egypt, 242.
Rufinus Albinus, consul, 140, 503,
523-
Rufinus, consul, 504, 544.
Rufinust, Africa, 127.
Rufusf, Egypt, 127.
Rufus, civil officer, 143.
2Tpd/3iAoi, 94.
Sabbath (Saturday), 565.
Sabellianism (see Fatripassian), 84,
432, 433> 434, 43<5, 437, 439.
443; popular m Libya, 173, 177;
tenets, 179.
Sabellians, 463 ; confiited by the
name ' Son,' 434.
Sabellius, 413, 462, 484, 485, 486;
doctrineof, 395 ; taught vloiraToip,
458 ; a short way with, 186.
Sacrifice, Christ's death a, 40, 41,
47-
Sacrifices, why ordered of old, 546 ;
human, 17, 42.
Sadducees, 224.
Saints, example of, 5 10.
Salia, consul, 504, 548.
Sallustius, consul, 504.
Sallustius, FI., consul, 498, 505.
Salomon, bishop of Rhinocorura,
539-
Salustiusf, Africa, 127.
Samosata (see Paul)
Samuel, books of, 1st and 2nd of
Kings, 552.
Sanctification through the Spirit, 333,
336-
Sapricius, *I27, 148.
Saprion, bishop of Tentyra, xxxvii.,
^ 142, 539-
Saracens, 209.
Sarapammon, bishopf, 127, 142,
273, (548?).
Sarapamponf, Egypt, 127, see Sara-
pammon.
Sarapion (see Serapinn).
Sarapion, son of Sozon, 134.
Sarapion, deacon, 72; P. of Mareotis,
140.
Sarapion, P. of Alxa., 139.
Sarapion t, Egypt, 127.
Sarapionf, Egypt, 127, 539.
Sarapion ' Pelycon,' Arian, 297
(69?).
Sarbatiust, Gaul, 127, 241 (?).
Sardica, council of, 226, 504 ; pre-
parations for, 239 ; bishops at,
126, 147, 554 sq. ; Arianising
leaders named, 119, 123, 125,
126 ; duration of the council,
xlv., note, 124, note; history of
the council, 274 ; manoeuvres
of the Orientals, 125, 126 ;
secession of Orientals, 119, 120,
122, 124, 125, 555; Arians
excommunicated, 126; creed
drafted at, 484; letters of the
council, 119 sqq.\ encyclical
letter, 123 ; council widely ap-
proved, 100; list of provinces,
&c., represented, 119; provinces
of signatories, 279 ; Sardican
envoys at Antioch, 276.
Sarmates, Arian presbyter, 70.
Sarmaton, deacon, 72.
Sarvatius, Gallic bishop, 241 (see
Sarhalius).
Satan, 227 ; wiles of, 223 (see
Devil).
Satornilusf, Gaul, 127.
Satyrust, Gaul, 127.
Sazanes, Ethiopian prince, 250.
Schismatics, 49, 518, 519, 521, 525,
(Meletian) 531.
Scripture, appeal to, 388 ; list of
books of, 551 sq. ; non-canonical
books, 552 ; lections, 338, 352,
379 ; inaccurately quoted by
Athan., 59, 258, 261, 350, 353,
notes, 546, 547, (Isaiah for
Micah)476 ; study of, 66; to be
studied critically, 159 ; context
to be heeded, 312,338, 351, 352,
372 ; how to treat its difficulties,
471 ; similes of, 404 ; inspiration
of, 551 ; authority of, 255 ; can-
not contradict itself, 546 ; suf-
ficiency of, 4, 200, 225, 453 ; use
and abuse of, 471 ; abuse of, 310;
Scriptural terms perversely used,
227, 228; Scriptural language
demanded, 150 ; may be abused,
491 ; .Scriptural language to be
used, 162, 171, 172 ; non-scrip-
tural language may be used, 162,
164.
Scylla, 15.
6o4
II. GENERAL INDEX.
Scythians, i6, 17, 64.
Seasons, principle of their observance,
506, 520.
Sebastian , Manichsean, dukeof Egypt,
257, 2q2, 297, 497.
Sebastianus Thrax, prefect of Egypt,
504-
Secundus, bishop of Ptolemais
(Arian), 70, 1 1 3, 226, 233, 294,
297, 456.
Secundus of Barka, martyred, 294.
Seed, heresy compared to, 1 5 1, n.
Seleucia in Isauria, 451, 453 ; pro-
ceedings of the council, 455 sqq.
Seleucius (i.e. Eleusius), 498.
Self-examination (Antony), 21 1.
Semi-Arians, xxvii., xxxiv., Iv., 78
sq. ;. ' beloved,' 473; Catholic in
meaning, 472 ; exhorted to
peace, 479.
Semele, 10.
Sempronianust, Egypt, 127.
Sempronius, Gaul, 127.
Senses, subject to mind, 20 (see
Sold).
Sentence against sin, Christ satisfied
it, 40.
Septuagint, quotation varying from,
470.
Serapammon (or Sarapammon), bp.
of Diosphacus, 548 (probably
not p. 127, &.C.).
Serapammon, bp. of Prosopis, 54^
(probably not p. 127, &c. ).
Serapas, D. of Mareotis, 140.
Serapion (see Saprion, Sarapion).
Serapion, Arian deacon, 69, (297 ?).
Serapion, deacon, 71.
Serapion of Thmuis, (134?), 217,
220 ; account of, 564, note ;
formerly a monk, 559 ; legatee
of Antony, 220 ; sent to Italy,
497, 504 ; mission to Constan-
tius, 560 ; letters to him, 538,
564 ; date of his death, of. 570,
note.
Seras of Paraetonium, 456.
Serenus, presb., 72,
Serenust, Egypt, 127, 539.
Serenust, Egypt, 127.
Sergius, consul, 504.
Serras, deacon, 72, 140.
Severianust, Africa, 127.
Severinusf, Gaul, 127.
Severus, *I26, 148, *S54.
Severus, *I48.
Severusf, Italy, 127.
Sexual morality, 557.
Shepherd (see Hermas).
Silence, the divine, 437.
Silvanus, presbyter, 71.
Silvanus, bp. of Arsinoe, 539, 548.
Silvanus, Meletian, 135.
Silvanusf, Palestine, 127, 130.
Silvester, Dacian bishop, 227.
Simile, of Asbestos, 51,61; of a city,
374; of fountain, 158, 322; of
king and colonists, 43 ; of light
and brightness, 158, 164 sq.,
182, 184, 230, 366 sq., 369 sq. ;
of light and sun, 89 ; of a por-
trait, 43 ; of river and well,
183, 185 ; of royal city, 41 ; of
son and servants, 376 ; of straw
and asbestos, 61 ; simile of
the sun, 45, 66, 397, 398,
402, (Arian), 460 ; of sun and
light, 322 : of sunrise, 51, 53 ;
of a teacher, 44; of a tyrant,
5 1 ; of usurping kings, 66 ; of
waves, 65 sq. ; of wrestler, 49 ;
Sim.iles applied to Person of
Christ, 183 sq. ; similes not to
be pressed, 404-406.
Simon Magus, 307.
Simpliciusf, Ga7il, 127.
Sin, origin of, 5, 38 ; progress
of, 39, 42 ; prevalence of, 39 ;
necessitated Incarnation, 384 ;
original in all before Christ,
411 ; some men without, 4;
many free from sin before
Christ, 41 1 ; consequences of,
38, 39; alone involves defile-
ment, 556 ; destroys knowledge
of God, 42 ; destroyed by Christ
alone, 341 ; abolished in Christ,
378 ; remission of, 43 ; men-
tal, 547 ; sins of thought, 556 ;
sin and holiness from within,
535 (see Sentence, Mafi).
Singara in Mesop., 272.
Sinners described, 534.
Sirmium, 271, 287, 298, 454; coun-
cils of, 464 sfq.
Sisinnius, Arian, 297.
Socrates, 9.
Socrates, *I26, 148.
Solomon, Wisdom of, 552.
Solon, 14.
Son, meanings of in Scripture, 154,
156 ; -Son of God, generation of,
156 sq. ; begotten not made, 85;
doctrine of irpoBoKri, 436; not
originated for creation, 1 54 sq. ;
His relation to creation pri-
marily as Incarnate, 382; 'Son'
and ' Word ' complementary,
157, 160, 472; the Word the
only real, 319 ; Son and
Word identical, 439 sq., 443,
574 ; Hand of God, 161 ; His
Godhead the Father's, 357, 361,
395; has the Father's attributes,
&c., 492; has all divine at-
tributes, 395, 476; eternity of,
312 sqq. ; subordination of, 464;
not subject to change, 326,
334; knows the Father, 231;
why not a father also, 319;
' Son ' and ' creature ' incom-
patible, 158, 230; ' Son of God'
naturally so, 156, note.
Sonship, idea of, 441 ; contrasted
with creation, 375 ; implied in
derivative being, 438 ; implies
coessentiality, 472, 568 sq. ;
meaning of the Divine, 314,
321 sq., 388 ; Divine, not like
human, 320 ; Divine, natural,
not moral, 328 ; Divine, not due
to progress, 328 ; Sonship of
Christ eternal, 182 ; Sonship of
all Christians, 171, note 5; ana-
logy of human, 322 ; sons may
be called 'made,' 350.
Sophronius, Arian bishop, 498.
Sosicratest, Cyprus, 127.
Sostras, presb., 72.
Sotades, 178, 307, 308, 457.
Soteira, 10.
Soterichus, Meletian bishop, 137.
Soteriology, 33 (see Athanasius,
Atonement, Rt'dempliott).
Soul, existence of, denied by some
heretics, 20; proved to exist,
20 ; immortal, 21, 22 ; indepen-
dent of body, 21 ; rational, 20,
21, 32 sq. ; its power of objective
thought, 45 ; acts through body,
45 ; regulates the senses, 20 ;
the passage of souls, 213.
Sozon, 134.
Sperantiusf, Italy, 127.
Spirantius, 240.
Spirit, the Holy, 159, 334, 336;
theology of, 182, 484, 494 ;
procession of, 315 ; does not
unite Son to Father, 406 ; unites
man to God, 407 ; God only
could give tlie, 357 ; instrument
of adoption, 381 ; agent of
grace, 406 ; blasphemy against,
335. 336, 418 (see Holy Spirit,
Sanctijication, Paraclete).
Spudasius, *I27, 148.
Spyridonf, Cyprus, 127, cf. xviii.
Stephanus, Arian bishop of Ptole-
mais, 294, 456, 498.
Stephanus, officer in Egypt, 242.
Stephen of Antioch, 119, 123, 125,
126, 226, 271, 275, 555, 556;
disgraced, 275, 276 ; deposed,
462, note.
Stercorius, *I26, 148, *cf. 554.
Stoics, 354; maintain a process in
God, 437.
Sub-deacons, 292.
Superior!, Gaul, 127.
Symmachus, consul, 503, 510.
Symphorus, *I27, 148, *554.
Syncletius, court officer, 132.
Syria, bishop of, 538.
Syrians, 16.
Syrianus, Dux ^gypti, 246, 263,
288, 289, 301, 497, 498, 499,
505-
Syrust, Egypt, 127.
OaWol, 291.
Tabenne, Society of, 509.
Tapenacerameus, Meletian, 135.
Tatianus, consul, 497, 505.
Tatianus, prefect of Egypt, 499, 505,
506.
Taurians, 17.
Taurinus, Egyptian bishop, 142.
Taurus, count, 277 ; consul, 497,
498, 505-
Temple, Christ's body a, 47 ; the
Jewish, 551.
Temptation proceeds from within,
207.
Terais, value of theological, 167.
Tertullian, xxiv.
Thalassus, count, 239, 277.
Thalelseus, presb., 72.
' Thalia,' the (see Arias).
Thebais, the, 137, 251 ; Athanasius
there, 498, 503, 505.
Thebes, 16.
II. GENERAL INDEX.
605
Theodoras of Heliopolis, prefect of
Egypt, 503. 527-
Theodoras, Meletian bishop, 137.
Theodoras, Arian bishop in Syria (?),
498.
Theodoras of Tabenne, 487 ; date ol
his death, 569, note ; eulogy of,
569 sq.
Theodoras of Nitria, 212, 487.
Theodorus, bishop of Athribisf, 127,
(142?), 483, 4S6.
Theodorus of Tanis (?)t, 127, 539.
Theodoras, bishop of Aphroditopolis,
539-
Theodorus, bishop of Oxyrynchus,
liii., 548.
Theodorus, bishop of Coptos (142 ?),
548.
Theodorus, bishop of Xois, 548.
Theodorus, bishop of Diosphacus,
548.
Theodorus, bishop of Heraclea, 107,
114, 119, 123, 125, 126, 226,
275, 279, 462, 497, 554, 555,
556.
Theodosiusf, Palestine, 127, 130.
Theodosius of Tripolis, 271.
Theodosius of Philadelphia, 455 (?),
456.
Theodotus(see Theodosius ofPhilad.).
Theodotus of Syrian Laodicea, 458.
Theodulus of Traianopolis, 256, 276;
death of, 124,
Theodulus, Arian bishop, 456.
Theognis of Nicsea, 104, 107, 114,
124, 146.
Theognostus, 166, 167.
Theon, reconciled Meletian bishop
of Nilopolis, 137, 548.
Theon, presb., 72, 140
Theon t, Egypt, 127, 142.
Theon, D. of Alxa., 139 (71 ?).
Theonas, deacon, 71.
Theonas, deacon, 72.
Theonas, bishop of Marmarica, 70.
Theonas, church of, at Alxa., 243,
497. 503, 505-
Theophanies (O.T.), 400 sqq., 463,
465-
Theophilus, bishop of Alxa., 487,
495 -^'Z-. 499-
Theophronius of Tyana, 461.
Thereu (see Chcereu),
Thersites, 13.
Theseus, 9".
Thetis, 10.
Thracians, 16.
Thryphos (see Trypho).
Thyrsus, P. of Mareotis, 140.
Tiberinusf, -Egypt, 127.
Timotheus, Meletian deacon, 137.
Timotheus, name of two deacons of
Alxa., 139.
Timotheust, Egypt, 127, 142.
Timotheusf, Egypt, 127.
Timothy, bishop of Alexandria, 499.
Tithoest, Egypt, 127 (or Tithonas),
548.
Titianus, consul, 503.
Titles of the Son of God, 160.
Tobit, not canonical, 552.
Tombs of Egypt, 198 ; searched by
Arians, 291.
Tradition, 74 note 3, 456-7 ; apos-
tolic, 577; apostolic principle
of, 511, 512; traditions of men
to be rejected, 512 ; negative
force of, 567, 571 ; in Old Testa-
ment, 153.
Translation of bishops illegal, 104.
Traianus, Dux .^gypti, 499, 505.
Treveri in Gaul, 146, (see Cons tans,
Athanasius, Maximinus, Paul-
inus).
Triadelphus, bishop of Niciupolis in
Prosopis, 497, 504, 548.
Trials, value of earthly, 539, 547
(see Perseverance).
Trinity, the Holy, 484, 494 ; Tpias
and ' Trinity, '167, note ; eternal,
316 sg. ; indivisible, 182 ; One
in operation, 370, 400, 402 ;
Trinity and Incarnation, 573.
Triphyllust, Cyprus, 127.
Tripolis, bishops of, 271,
Triptolemus, 14.
Trisagion, the, 90.
Troy, 10.
Trumpets, symbolism of, 506 sq.
Truth, praises of, 242 ; negatively
apprehended by us, 563.
Tryphon, deacon, 72; P. of Mareotis,
140.
Tryphon, *I27, 148, *554,
Typhon, 9, 216.
Tyrannus, Meletian presbyter, 137.
Tyrannus, presb., 72.
Tyrannus (reconciled Meletian ?),
Egyptian bishop, 136, 142, 548.
Tyre, council of, xxxix., 103, 104,
114, 116, 137, 140, 145, 503.
Unity of God proved, 24, 25 ; taught
in Scripture, 28 (see God).
Universe, earth the centre of, 18;
a single body, 19.
Unoriginate, see a^eVrjros.
Uranius of Tyre, 455, 456.
Ursaciusof Singidunum (see Valens),
1x4, 119, 123, 125, 126, 226,
275. 451. 452, 453. 454. 455. 466,
489, 490, 494; recantation of,
130,238; Ursacius and Valens,
xxxiv., 146, 280, 284, 285-287,
299. 300, 504, 554, 555, 556,
570; ' most wicked you ths, ' 1 20,
122; recant, loi, IIO, 130, 238,
278, 286; relapse, 279, 281,
282.
Ursacius (or Ursicius), *I26, 148,
*554-
Ursus, consul, 503, 527.
Valens, *I27, 148.
Valens, officer of Magnentius, 241.
Valens, emperor and consul, 499,
505 sq. ; Arian measures of, 499.
Valens, bishop of Mursa (see Ursa-
cius), liv., loi, 107, 114, 119,
123, 125, 126, 226, 275,448, 451,
452, 453. 454, 455. 466, 489,
490, 494, 554, 555. 556-
Valentinian, emperor and consul,
499, 505 ^9-
Valentinian H., consulate of, 499,
506.
Valentinians, 294, 456, 458 (see
Valentinus).
Valenlinus, 307, 339, 359, 426, 429,
430, 478, 484, 485, 575.
Valentinusf, Gaul, 127.
Valerinusf, Gaul, 127.
Valerius!, Africa, 127.
Varronianus, consul, 498, 505.
Verissimusf, Gaul, '127, 147, 148,
*554.
Vetranio, 288, 298.
Viatorf, Italy, 127.
Viclorj, 4A''^'^. 127.
Victor}, Africa, 127.
Victor, consul, 499, 506
Victorf, Gaul, 127.
Victorinus, duke, 499.
Victorinusf, Gaul, 127.
Victurusf, Gaul, 127.
Viminacium, 240.
Vincentius, bishop of Capua, •ize,
148, 239, 248, 276.
Vintners, Jewish (see Jewish).
Virgin (Artemis or Iphigeneia), 17.
Virgin, the Blessed, 40, 46 ; pre-
dicted, 54 (see Mary).
Virginity, 64, 557 ; example of, 219;
Christian practice, 252.
Virgins, 116, 249, 252, 529; house
inhabited by, 108 ; insulted by
Arians, 94, 108; maltreated, 257,
290, 292, 297, 302.
Visions, how to be tested, 205, 206,
208.
Visitations, episcopal, 139.
Vitalius, *I26, 148.
Vitalius, *I27, 148, *554.
Vitaliusf, Italy, 127.
Vito, Roman presbyter, no.
War, 64.
Well-beloved, means Only, 443, 445.
Wicked, destiny of the, 38, 66, 67,
524 (see Death, Punishnent,
Hell).
Widows in churches, 293 ; cf. 297 ;
supported by state bounty, 109.
Will, free, 6, 5, 20, ^J, 38, 201,
547; 'Will' and 'nature,' 427
sq. ; Will and understanding
identical, 429; Will, the sole
source of sin, 556; the Son
not from, 425 sqq.
Wine used by the poor at Alxa.,
274.
Wisdom, created, 391 ; God never
without, 159 ; hypostatic in
God, 434 ; of God and of Man,
323-
Wisdom of Solomon not canonical,
552. ^ .
Women, violence of Arian, 292.
Word, doctrine of the 433 sqq., 437;
existence of, 58; undoubtedly
exists, 26 ; no uni.ersal reason,
25 ; personal, 25 ; Word of God,
and of man, 323, 367; *Word'
and 'words,' 369; not com-
posed of syllables, 26 ; not made
by a word, 427, 429, 430 ; with-
out beginning, 379 ; not a crea-
ture, 375; God never without,
159 (see Logos); perfect, 160;
The Word and the Universe, 26,
27 ; cause of all created perfec-
tion,42l; vehicleof divine Will,
6o6
II. GENERAL INDEX.
427, 430 ; cosmic function of,
25, 26 ; with God in Creating,
29 ; immanent in Nature, 40 ;
not identified with Universe, 45 ;
known by creation, 231 ; the
Father known through, 312, 331 ;
pilot of the soul, 547 ; food of
the soul, 508 ; ' Word ■• ' and
*Son,' complementary ideas,
322 ; ' Word,' distinctive of the
Son, 186; in what sense used of
Christ, 160 ; why incarnate, 335 ;
omniscient when incarnate, 418;
not limited by Incarnation, 45,
330 ; Word, as such, not exalted,
332 sq. , 334 (see Christ, Son,&^c.)
Worship, due to God only, 360, 400.
Xenont, Egypt, 127.
Zenius, prefect of Egypt, 503, 506.
Zeno, 14.
Z^nobia, 296.
Zenobiusf, Palestine, 127, 130.
Zenophilus, consul, 503, 5 1 7.
Zeus, 8, 9, ID, 12, 13, 14, 17,
62.
Zoilus, deacon, 72.
Zoilus, Egypt, bishop, 483, 486.
Zosimus, *I26, 148, *554.
Zosimus, *I26, 148, *554.
Zosimus, *I27, 148, *554.
Zosimus, Arian deacon, 69, 297.
19.
•7' •■..•. W^'i^
r - ..
.«:
^ ...
: K',:
M -'^S^
• ■ i) "''1
•^*i-
<r.
1 ■^-
1 •
<4
' I '
■'SS^
j'S'^
■J^''^;>J
:/';> ,,.... '
- /';*■■
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11